http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29520761

I distinctly remember arguing on this group a few years back with someone
saying that walk through tube trains would be impossible because of [insert
nonsense reason about loading gauge here]. Good thing for them I can't remember
who it was and I'm too lazy to go through the archives otherwise there would be
a serious session of I Told You So right now.

--
Spud

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:22:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29520761

I distinctly remember arguing on this group a few years back with someone
saying that walk through tube trains would be impossible because of [insert
nonsense reason about loading gauge here]. Good thing for them I can't remember
who it was and I'm too lazy to go through the archives otherwise there would be
a serious session of I Told You So right now.

I thought that TfL had considered walk-through for the 2009 stock on the Victoria line, but rejected it as impractical.

AIUI, this proposed new stock is not intended to replace the 2009 stock.
--
Roy

In the hopes that I did not miss this, there is now a video of the
proposed new trains.

It really does look like a 38ts MkII

http://www.independent.co.uk/i/video...d-9785738.html

" wrote:
In the hopes that I did not miss this, there is now a video of the proposed new trains.

It really does look like a 38ts MkII

http://www.independent.co.uk/i/video...d-9785738.html

Let's just (probably forlornly) hope that the seats are deeply cushioned
and comfortable like the 38TS. More likely, they'll have 1cm of unyielding
padding under the trad velour.

wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29520761

I distinctly remember arguing on this group a few years back with someone
saying that walk through tube trains would be impossible because of [insert
nonsense reason about loading gauge here]. Good thing for them I can't remember
who it was and I'm too lazy to go through the archives otherwise there would be
a serious session of I Told You So right now.

Apart from being being lazy, you have a bad memory as well as a poor grasp
of engineering. The argument was with me, and it was that small-size Tube
stock would need to be articulated to have wide through gangways. Years
ago, such trains were proposed for the Victoria line, but Metronet went for
cheaper conventional stock with your favourite thick walls instead.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:47:32 -0500
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29520761

I distinctly remember arguing on this group a few years back with someone
saying that walk through tube trains would be impossible because of [insert
nonsense reason about loading gauge here]. Good thing for them I can't
remember
who it was and I'm too lazy to go through the archives otherwise there would
be
a serious session of I Told You So right now.

Apart from being being lazy, you have a bad memory as well as a poor grasp

Or perhaps I use my memory for more important things than remembering the
names of people in long ago usenet arguments.

of engineering. The argument was with me, and it was that small-size Tube
stock would need to be articulated to have wide through gangways. Years

Yes you did. Then it was pointed out to you that equally narrow non articulated
trains in paris already had walk through at which point you disappeared in a
fog of bluster.

ago, such trains were proposed for the Victoria line, but Metronet went for
cheaper conventional stock with your favourite thick walls instead.

And that proves what other than metronet were idiots?

--
Spud

So the 92 stock are being got rid of already, including the W&C ones
which have seen relatively little use? Apart from the time the engines
fall off, have they generally been considered a disaster? As a
passenger, I liked them a lot.

Basil Jet wrote:
So the 92 stock are being got rid of already, including the W&C ones
which have seen relatively little use? Apart from the time the engines
fall off, have they generally been considered a disaster? As a passenger,
I liked them a lot.

I believe they've never been particularly reliable, and like the D stock,
they'll go early in the interests of having a standard design across
multiple lines. But they'll probably complete well over 30 years service
before retiring, so it's not a dramatically shortened life.

The ironic thing is that the Northern line needs extra trains in the same
time-scale, but I don't suppose there would be any chance of using
redundant 92TS on that line alongside the slightly newer 95TS. Had those
lines shared a standard design, it would have been feasible.

On 2014-10-11 14:30:13 +0000, Recliner said:

The ironic thing is that the Northern line needs extra trains in the same
time-scale, but I don't suppose there would be any chance of using
redundant 92TS on that line alongside the slightly newer 95TS. Had those
lines shared a standard design, it would have been feasible.

92 stock would be too big I think. It definitely appears higher and wider.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-11 14:30:13 +0000, Recliner said:

The ironic thing is that the Northern line needs extra trains in the same
time-scale, but I don't suppose there would be any chance of using
redundant 92TS on that line alongside the slightly newer 95TS. Had those
lines shared a standard design, it would have been feasible.

92 stock would be too big I think. It definitely appears higher and wider.

Not according to the dimensions quoted in Wikipedia: the 92 TS cars are
shown as lighter, narrower, shorter and lower than the 95TS. See
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londo...und_1992_Stock
and
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londo...und_1995_Stock