List of slowest to fastest underground lines.

[sealion]

Always thought is would have been the Victoria line but apparently not.

Speeds of Underground lines from slowest to fastest and the difference is huge

The information was made available from a Freedom of Information request

www.mylondon.news

 

[hash tag]

Victoria line is relatively new by comparison to many lines. I also imagine there are reasonable distances between some of the stations.
No mention of jubilee line

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Always thought is would have been the Victoria line but apparently not.

yes, the metropolitan line has a fair distance between stations once it gets north of baker street, and more so once it gets out in to the wilds. there used to be some 'fast' traims that didn't call at all stations as well - not sure if it still works like that.

 

[sealion]

yes, the metropolitan line has a fair distance between stations once it gets north of baker street,

True. Always use it when we go to Wembley rather than the jubilee line.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Victoria line is fast. Walthamstow to Brixton in just over half an hour. That's more than 20 kilometres.

 

[T & P]

However, imo there is more than highest average speed. As far as crossing London via Zone 1 goes, no other line touches the Victoria Line. From Brixton you can be in Victoria in under ten minutes, in Euston/ King’s Cross in about 15, and even deep into North London territory in 25. No other line offers that.

 

[tim]

Not having the Jubilee Line let alone the Elizabeth Line makes this rather pointless, if you are looking at working out the fastest point to point journeys.

 

[hash tag]

Not having the Jubilee Line let alone the Elizabeth Line makes this rather pointless, if you are looking at working out the fastest point to point journeys.

Elizabeth line is not an underground line.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Always thought is would have been the Victoria line but apparently not.

Speeds of Underground lines from slowest to fastest and the difference is huge

The information was made available from a Freedom of Information request

www.mylondon.news

The Victoria line is entirely underground so would be the fastest of you did away with the Met lines over land advantage.

 

[brogdale]

Elizabeth line is not an underground line.

Nah, I've been on it and it was deffo under the ground.

 

[Bus Honeygun]

Hammersmith & City is the one I've done most having arrived in London at Paddington and the fact that's it's near the bottom is no surprise. The bottlebeck on the bit shared with the Met and the junction at Edgware Road are the main culprits. Thank flip for Crossrail, I say.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Nah, I've been on it and it was deffo under the ground.

So are we including Eurostar and the Metro too?

 

[brogdale]

So are we including Eurostar and the Metro too?

Not on the tube map, are they?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Not on the tube map, are they?

It wasn’t included because the Elizabeth Line isn’t part of London Underground Ltd.

 

[brogdale]

It wasn’t included because the Elizabeth Line isn’t part of London Underground Ltd.

 

[A380]

What about the secret one that goes from Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street to that bunker in a Wiltshire quarry, the one with the gold carriages?

 

[Elpenor]

Not on the tube map, are they?

Thameslink?

 

[hash tag]

Nah, I've been on it and it was deffo under the ground.

I've been on it, overground

 

[tommers]

Underground, overground, wombling free.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

it's under ground (at least the central london bit) but it's not London Underground

if you go to whitechapel the underground is nearest the surface, the overground is downstairs, and the lizard line is in a very deep hole

 

[tim]

Underground, overground, wombling free.

A song written before the trams came back to Wimbledon.

Is this you?

 

[Chz]

The top three wouldn't surprise any proper Tube geek. While it crawls centrally, the Met gets up to 50mph out in the sticks and there are a lot of sticks. Victoria has always been fast, as the stations are well-spaced and it was designed for high acceleration/braking under automated train control. Central might be unexpected, but it had so much trouble back in the 1980s that they sort of overdid it when they refurbed the line. The trains have every axle powered, and they retrofitted automated train control to use the frankly absurd acceleration profile to its limit. (It's quite noticeable that Central Line trains are really jumpy)

Northern does surprise me, but that may be part and parcel of them rolling out ATO to it recently. Jubilee should be much the same, but the only difference between the trains is that the NL's motors are a bit more modern (which is weird, because they're "95" stock and the JL is "96", but whatever) so that may make the difference.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It explains in the article that they run trains slower in central London to increase frequency. So it's less about performance of a particular stock and more about its route.

 

[Chz]

It explains in the article that they run trains slower in central London to increase frequency. So it's less about performance of a particular stock and more about its route.

Acceleration and braking matters immensely. The reason the Moscow Metro manages a trains-per-hour rate that TfL can only dream of is that they accelerate and brake at a rate that wouldn't be allowed here for safety reasons.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Acceleration and braking matters immensely. The reason the Moscow Metro manages a trains-per-hour rate that TfL can only dream of is that they accelerate and brake at a rate that wouldn't be allowed here for safety reasons.

Good point. But the article is about average speeds which is as much to do with restrictions on speed being the bottle neck.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

It explains in the article that they run trains slower in central London to increase frequency. So it's less about performance of a particular stock and more about its route.

is that in the sense of overall end to end journey is slower because a train is going to take longer for people to get on and off at (say) oxford circus, or is it more complicated than that?

i guess the distance between stations will have some sort of impact on the whole thing - frequency on the piccadilly line is going to be constrained by trains needing to stop at leicester square and covent garden, and there's no point in scheduling something that will work at the outer ends of the line where stations are further apart, but cause trains to stack up in the central area.

or is it with modern / automated signalling that trains can follow each other more closely at slower overall speeds?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

is that in the sense of overall end to end journey is slower because a train is going to take longer for people to get on and off at (say) oxford circus, or is it more complicated than that?

I think it's because they consider moving a greater volume of people through the capital trumps getting them there more quickly.

 

[Chz]

is that in the sense of overall end to end journey is slower because a train is going to take longer for people to get on and off at (say) oxford circus, or is it more complicated than that?

i guess the distance between stations will have some sort of impact on the whole thing - frequency on the piccadilly line is going to be constrained by trains needing to stop at leicester square and covent garden, and there's no point in scheduling something that will work at the outer ends of the line where stations are further apart, but cause trains to stack up in the central area.

or is it with modern / automated signalling that trains can follow each other more closely at slower overall speeds?

Automation makes a difference. There's a reason why 3 of the top 4 are ATO lines and the other runs out into Buckinghamshire.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I think it's because they consider moving a greater volume of people through the capital trumps getting them there more quickly.

it must be down to more than a policy decision, though - there must be something practical behind it if (as you seem to be saying) you can move a greater volume of people by doing it more slowly - the 'greater volume' wasn't part of the discussion before.

it seems counter-intuitive, but there's probably a good reason...

 

[Magnus McGinty]

it must be down to more than a policy decision, though - there must be something practical behind it if (as you seem to be saying) you can move a greater volume of people by doing it more slowly - the 'greater volume' wasn't part of the discussion before.

it seems counter-intuitive, but there's probably a good reason...

I think you're on the right track (pun unintended) that it will be all timed on how long a train sits in a station loading/unloading passengers. Run them faster and they have to be more infrequent else keeping hitting red signals.