| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any
disadvantages. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
wrote in message
Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any disadvantages. It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be articulated, and would then have open gangways. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:48:56 -0000
"Recliner" wrote: wrote in message Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any disadvantages. It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be articulated, and would then have open gangways. Not room for what? Instead of the carraige endwall there is a rubber skirt (or whatever its called). I don't see the problem. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
wrote in message
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:48:56 -0000 "Recliner" wrote: wrote in message Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any disadvantages. It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be articulated, and would then have open gangways. Not room for what? Instead of the carraige endwall there is a rubber skirt (or whatever its called). I don't see the problem. As I said, this was discussed in detail some time ago. Perhaps the 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 LURS member, look at the photo on page 5 of the Jan 2012 issue of Underground News to see what I mean. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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? |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
|
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
|
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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) |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
Are they articulated? They are reticulated. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
On 06/01/2012 12:48, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any disadvantages. It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be articulated, and would then have open gangways. I always thought that was the initial plan, and was slightly surprised when I found out they were not walk through. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:57:45 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: 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). Oh I dunno, try looking at the picture? Just a thought. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:57:45 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Paris Metro MF2000 Are they articulated? As far as I can tell, having looked at the posted images and played with contrast, they're not articulated in the sense of adjacent cars sharing the same bogey, no. Rgds Denis McMahon |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
wrote in message
On 06/01/2012 12:48, Recliner wrote: wrote in message Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any disadvantages. It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be articulated, and would then have open gangways. I always thought that was the initial plan, and was slightly surprised when I found out they were not walk through. Yup, it is a disappointment. Had it not been for the PPP scheme, there's a reasonable chance that the 2009 stock would have been based on the space train ideas, with articulation, wider carriages, open gangways and maybe even some form of air cooling. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
In message , at 19:45:42 on Sat, 7
Jan 2012, Eric remarked: Or, better still, this pictu http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/j...4287_p1200.jpg That's a much better picture. -- Roland Perry |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 19:45:42 on Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Eric remarked: Or, better still, this pictu http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/j...4287_p1200.jpg That's a much better picture. If those are indeed two separate twin-axle bogies, they're very close to the ends of the carriages, which means there won't be much relative movement between them (compared to normal carriages with much more overhang). This makes it much easier to fit open gangways. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:53:53 -0000
"Recliner" wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message In message , at 19:45:42 on Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Eric remarked: Or, better still, this pictu http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/j...4287_p1200.jpg That's a much better picture. If those are indeed two separate twin-axle bogies, they're very close to the ends of the carriages, which means there won't be much relative movement between them (compared to normal carriages with much more overhang). This makes it much easier to fit open gangways. 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. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
wrote in message
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:53:53 -0000 "Recliner" wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message In message , at 19:45:42 on Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Eric remarked: Or, better still, this pictu http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/j...4287_p1200.jpg That's a much better picture. If those are indeed two separate twin-axle bogies, they're very close to the ends of the carriages, which means there won't be much relative movement between them (compared to normal carriages with much more overhang). This makes it much easier to fit open gangways. 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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"Recliner" wrote in
: 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. If cars have shared bogies, or bogies very near the ends, the centre throw will be greater than with the current placement of the bogies. Given the tight fit of tube trains in their tunnels I would imagine that that would give a clearance problem on curves - unless you go for substantially shorter (and more) cars, like the Space Train. On the Waterloo and City they solved a similar problem by grinding part of the flanges off the tunnel lining segments, but as I recall the Victoria Line has concrete linings without flanges. I had a look this morning at the width/height issue, and 3 average height people can stand side-by-side in the vestibule area facing along the car. So I think a wide gangway would probably allow two people to pass, provided the gangway was about as high as the internal car body. Peter CS |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:35:17 +0000 (UTC)
Peter Campbell Smith wrote: I had a look this morning at the width/height issue, and 3 average height people can stand side-by-side in the vestibule area facing along the car. So I think a wide gangway would probably allow two people to pass, provided the gangway was about as high as the internal car body. Yup. Give it 18 inches either side to allow for movement and you're sorted. B2003 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"Peter Campbell Smith" wrote in message
"Recliner" wrote in : 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. If cars have shared bogies, or bogies very near the ends, the centre throw will be greater than with the current placement of the bogies. Given the tight fit of tube trains in their tunnels I would imagine that that would give a clearance problem on curves - unless you go for substantially shorter (and more) cars, like the Space Train. On the Waterloo and City they solved a similar problem by grinding part of the flanges off the tunnel lining segments, but as I recall the Victoria Line has concrete linings without flanges. I had a look this morning at the width/height issue, and 3 average height people can stand side-by-side in the vestibule area facing along the car. So I think a wide gangway would probably allow two people to pass, provided the gangway was about as high as the internal car body. The carriages in an articulated train will certainly have to be shorter, roughly the spacing of the bogies in a conventional carriage (just as Eurostar carriages are). That would be needed both for clearance reasons as you say, and also to keep the axle loading down. In fact, it may be made particularly short to allow for wider carriages, unless the linked carriages are mounted on extended pivots, rather than the shared bogie. 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). |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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... |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"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? |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S 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. |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
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 |
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
"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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk