On 2015\12\30 13:45, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:34:37 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 04:54:19 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\30 04:30, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\29 22:11, Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

According to
http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_ht...ATT ERSEA.pdf

Nine Elms and Battersea will only have "passive provision" for PEDs.

Although, I can't imagine what passive provision for PEDs might be...
sufficiently large power cables leading to the platforms?

Straight and level platforms? Strong enough structure to support the PED
frames?

But the real reason for the train doors being the same size and position is
because the new trains will also be used on the Jubilee line, which needs a
larger fleet.


Although they could just transfer some 95s to the Jubilee Line and put
all of the new trains on the Northern. That actually sounds preferable
from a maintenance point of view, assuming the 95s and 96s are more
similar to each other than either will be to the new trains.

I'd quite like to know where the bottomless money pit is to fund these
larger batches of new trains in order to create some enthusiast's
dream of nice neat uniform train fleets.

A hysterical over-reaction. All I was saying was

(Jubilee = 96 + 95) & (Northern = 95 + new)

might be more uniform for maintenance purposes than

(Jubilee = 96 + new) & (Northern = 95 + new)

I wasn't advocating that an extra penny be spent or that either fleet be
uniform. You rescue your message by going on to say...

It is worth bearing in mind that there are traction package
differences between the 95 and 96 stocks so mixing those fleets is
perhaps not the best idea.

A valid point, thanks.