wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:20:08 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
So, sorry Boltar, you won't be seeing open gangways in LU Tube stock
in the absence of articulation.

.. in your opinion. I think you're wrong.

Yes, you've made that clear. If only the real world were as simple as
Boltar's world...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:45:16 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
With non-articulated stock with conventionally spaced bogies, there's a
lot of relative movement at the car ends on entry to curves, which the
gangway bellows have to absorb. This makes them thicker, and reduces the
gangway width. The same is true in vertical direction. So if you were to
try and install open gangways on a train like the 2009 stock, the
gangways would be very very cramped (narrow and low).

The curves are very gentle on the victoria line except perhaps in the depot
but that wouldn't matter since there wouldn't be any passengers on board then.

B2003

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:52:57 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:20:08 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
So, sorry Boltar, you won't be seeing open gangways in LU Tube stock
in the absence of articulation.

.. in your opinion. I think you're wrong.

Yes, you've made that clear. If only the real world were as simple as
Boltar's world...

You remind me of the typical can't do brit. Any excuse made for something
not being possible. And when presented with evidence that it can be done
you think up another reason why maybe it can't.

B2003

wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:52:57 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:20:08 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
So, sorry Boltar, you won't be seeing open gangways in LU Tube
stock in the absence of articulation.

.. in your opinion. I think you're wrong.

Yes, you've made that clear. If only the real world were as simple as
Boltar's world...

You remind me of the typical can't do brit. Any excuse made for
something not being possible. And when presented with evidence that
it can be done you think up another reason why maybe it can't.

With your uncanny ability to find instant solutions to all engineering
problems, you truly are the Brunel of our era. I just hope you are
putting this great gift to good use in your day job.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:06:08 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
You remind me of the typical can't do brit. Any excuse made for
something not being possible. And when presented with evidence that
it can be done you think up another reason why maybe it can't.

With your uncanny ability to find instant solutions to all engineering

I don't need to , others already have. You obviously weren't one of them.

B2003

On Jan 9, 1:20*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

First it was because tube trains are too narrow, then it was because
they're not articulated, now you're grasping at this straw. Just
admit you were wrong.

If the bogies are very near the car ends, then the effect is close to
articulation. But with the circular profile of Tube tunnels, I'm certain
that reasonable sized open gangways are not feasible without true
articulation. If you look at the relative movement of Tube car ends, you
can see just how difficult it would be -- look at how much smaller the
gangway is compared to the outer body in S stock and 378s in order to
accommodate all the movement.

So, sorry Boltar, you won't be seeing open gangways in LU Tube stock in
the absence of articulation.

Wrong. The original plan to have walk though Tube trains did not use
articulation. what they did instead was make the cars shorter so it
could flex better. The original S Stock was not designed for the SSL
but the Victoria Line. The idea being you went from 8 cars to 12 cars
with silmar train lengths.

Problem was this was being done just before PPP, which when Metronet
came in and saw the design was a risk they weren't will to run, so the
project was put on the back burner. Meaning the 09ts was designed and
lessons learnt from the S stock SSL version were put into practise and
are now being built.

"Mack" wrote in message

On Jan 9, 1:20 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

First it was because tube trains are too narrow, then it was because
they're not articulated, now you're grasping at this straw. Just
admit you were wrong.

If the bogies are very near the car ends, then the effect is close to
articulation. But with the circular profile of Tube tunnels, I'm
certain that reasonable sized open gangways are not feasible without
true articulation. If you look at the relative movement of Tube car
ends, you can see just how difficult it would be -- look at how much
smaller the gangway is compared to the outer body in S stock and
378s in order to accommodate all the movement.

So, sorry Boltar, you won't be seeing open gangways in LU Tube stock
in the absence of articulation.

Wrong. The original plan to have walk though Tube trains did not use
articulation. what they did instead was make the cars shorter so it
could flex better. The original S Stock was not designed for the SSL
but the Victoria Line. The idea being you went from 8 cars to 12 cars
with silmar train lengths.

Problem was this was being done just before PPP, which when Metronet
came in and saw the design was a risk they weren't will to run, so the
project was put on the back burner. Meaning the 09ts was designed and
lessons learnt from the S stock SSL version were put into practise and
are now being built.

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying (at
least Boltar is clear). Are you really saying that the S Stock was
designed for Tube gauge tunnels? And how would the 2009 stock be
designed based on lessons learned from the S stock, given that the 2009
stock went into service first? Both were designed at about the same
time, so it's hard to see how lessons learned from either could help the
other's design. And how would having lots of short, non-articulated
carriages facilitate open gangways or make it 'flex' better? Surely
that proposal for more, shorter carriages was also based on them being
articulated (which is why you have shorter carriages in the first
place)?

Aren't you getting mixed up with the articulated 'space train' concept,
which was indeed planned for the Victoria line before the PPP came in
and sidelined it, but which may be resurrected for the 1972 and 1973
replacement stock?

On Jan 10, 5:41*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"Mack" wrote in message



I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying (at
least Boltar is clear). Are you really saying that the S Stock was
designed for Tube gauge tunnels? *And how would the 2009 stock be
designed based on lessons learned from the S stock, given that the 2009
stock went into service first? *Both were designed at about the same
time, so it's hard to see how lessons learned from either could help the
other's design. *And how would having lots of short, non-articulated
carriages facilitate open gangways or make it 'flex' better? *Surely
that proposal for more, shorter carriages was also based on them being
articulated (which is why you have shorter carriages in the first
place)?

Aren't you getting mixed up with the articulated 'space train' concept,
which was indeed planned for the Victoria line before the PPP came in
and sidelined it, but which may be resurrected for the 1972 and 1973
replacement stock?

The replacement Victoria Stock, named the S Stock was developed
initially. The S stood for Space and was an early 90's project. They
were looking out the box with installing OHLE equipment on the entire
Victoria line along with this new fleet. Work on the intrastructure
stopped due to costs but work on the fleet continued. They also looked
at making an SSL version of the S stock, but this was after the
initial Tube version started.

The S stock actually went through a few periods of development but
nothing came to much for the Tube version. The 09ts was less inventive
evolution of the Tube fleet rather than a revolution. The development
wasn't wasted as was put into the S stock for the SSL lines.

I think I wasn't be as clear as the original S stock was the Victoria
Line fleet, which feed into the development of the 09ts in a limited
sense. But most of the work was transferred over to what we know call
the S stock for the SSL lines.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Mack wrote:
were looking out the box with installing OHLE equipment on the entire
Victoria line along with this new fleet.

Some ideas should stay in the box because they're just a little bit daft.

B2003

"Mack" wrote in message

On Jan 10, 5:41 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"Mack" wrote in message



I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying
(at least Boltar is clear). Are you really saying that the S Stock
was designed for Tube gauge tunnels? And how would the 2009 stock be
designed based on lessons learned from the S stock, given that the
2009 stock went into service first? Both were designed at about the
same time, so it's hard to see how lessons learned from either could
help the other's design. And how would having lots of short,
non-articulated carriages facilitate open gangways or make it 'flex'
better? Surely that proposal for more, shorter carriages was also
based on them being articulated (which is why you have shorter
carriages in the first place)?

Aren't you getting mixed up with the articulated 'space train'
concept, which was indeed planned for the Victoria line before the
PPP came in and sidelined it, but which may be resurrected for the
1972 and 1973 replacement stock?

The replacement Victoria Stock, named the S Stock was developed
initially. The S stood for Space and was an early 90's project.

Yes, this was the articulated "Space train" I mentioned. It's how they'd
have managed to install open gangways in the small Tube gauge. Let's
hope we get something like it to replace the 1972, 73 and 92 stocks.


The S stock actually went through a few periods of development but
nothing came to much for the Tube version. The 09ts was less inventive
evolution of the Tube fleet rather than a revolution.

Yes, that's certainly true. In fact, from the passenger point of view, I
don't think the 2009 stock is any advance on the 1967 stock, or even of
the superbly comfortable 1938 stock. I know it has some technical
advantages, like regen brakes and more advanced ATO, but it's less
comfortable and less reliable than the stock it replaced, without
providing any extra space.

At least the S stock is air-conditioned and has open gangways, even if
it's not really much of a revolution in other ways. Even the top speed
is no more than the A stock originally could do.