wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:49:14 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
As I said, this was discussed in detail some time ago. Perhaps the

Unfortunately I don't have time to trawl through a years worth of
posts.

engineers involved have a better understanding of 3D geometry than
you do, and can see the problem. In case you still can't understand,
look at the width of the gangway in 378s or S stock, and subtract
the difference in carriage width between them and the 2009 stock to
get an idea of how wide the resulting open gangway would be in Tube
stock. If you are a

I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a
visit.

Are they articulated?

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a
visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.

Recliner wrote on 06 January 2012 15:59:16 ...
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.

Some people use "articulated" to mean permanently connected cars with a
wide interconnecting gangway, and others use the word to mean cars that
have a shared bogie. Anyone using the word on this newsgroup should
first define which definition they are using.

On the Paris Métro all the trains from 1989 onwards have interconnecting
gangways but conventional bogies. The only trains with shared bogies
are the experimental MF88 on line 7bis; the bogies proved troublesome
and were not used on later stocks. Incidentally the train referred to
as "MF2000" is now known as MF01.

I believe the overall train width on the Métro (latest trains) is about
2.45m, compared with London's subsurface Tube trains at around 2.9m and
small tube stocks at around 2.6m. That surprises me, as the latest
Paris trains feel much wider than a London deep tube. Maybe it's the
difference in height that gives that impression.

I suspect that the lack of wide gangways on 2009 stock is because
Bombardier/Metronet could meet the terms of the PPP contract without
them, and LU had no leverage under PPP to force any major design
changes. LU are certainly now pursuing more radical design options for
the replacement of 1972/73 stock, e.g. the Siemens offering described at
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...ept-train.html
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message


Some people use "articulated" to mean permanently connected cars with
a wide interconnecting gangway, and others use the word to mean cars
that have a shared bogie. Anyone using the word on this newsgroup
should first define which definition they are using.

I was only aware of the shared-bogie definition of articulated trains.
In my view, the other definition is simply a misunderstanding.

On the Paris Métro all the trains from 1989 onwards have
interconnecting gangways but conventional bogies. The only trains
with shared bogies are the experimental MF88 on line 7bis; the bogies
proved troublesome
and were not used on later stocks. Incidentally the train referred to
as "MF2000" is now known as MF01.

The video I found certainly seems to show proper, articulated trains,
with shared bogies.


I suspect that the lack of wide gangways on 2009 stock is because
Bombardier/Metronet could meet the terms of the PPP contract without
them, and LU had no leverage under PPP to force any major design
changes. LU are certainly now pursuing more radical design options
for the replacement of 1972/73 stock, e.g. the Siemens offering
described at
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...ept-train.html

Yes, I agree that the PPP contract led to a timid, conventional design
for the 2009 stock. LU had long been been pursuing the idea of
articulated trains with open gangways for the replacement Victoria line
stock (the 'Space train' --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/108328170/), but the
misconceived PPP contract put the kibosh on it.

On 06/01/2012 15:59, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.


They are. indeed. I have been on them.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:49:28 +0000
" wrote:
On 06/01/2012 15:59, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.


They are. indeed. I have been on them.

Perhaps next time you go you should take a closer look. They are not
articulated, there are no shared bogies.

B2003

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:59:16 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.

I suggest you see an optician.

B2003

In message , at 15:48:51 on Fri, 6 Jan
2012, d remarked:
Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Dunno, how could we tell? (Other than the absence of the word in the
text for that page).
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 15:48:51 on Fri, 6 Jan
2012, d remarked:
Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Dunno, how could we tell? (Other than the absence of the word in the
text for that page).

Yes, definitely -- see this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaw...el#rel-page-15

Look at how it goes round the curve at about 0:25.