London Banter - London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)

- - London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/14378-london-tubes-unexpected-locations-underground.html)

London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains

Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:54:24 +0100
Recliner wrote:
The Northern needs five more for the Battersea extension plus up to 45
more to increase frequencies to up to 30 tph on the rest of the line.

Incidentally, Battersea will run as an extension of the Charing Cross
route, not as a separate branch.

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/medi...lu-to-source-a
ditional-tube-trains

Thats a lot of trains. I wonder if they'll keep essentially the same train
or will go for something all new under the skin? Also couldn't do any harm
to make the windows larger.

Yes, it is a surprisingly large order. In fact, if they go for the full
number, it's more than the total 2009 TS Victoria line stock.

There's obviously some constraints on the design: the doors must be in the
same position as on the current Victoria
[Oops!] *Jubilee*
line stock, and they must be
available in six and seven car lengths for the two lines. One possibility
might be to cascade existing Northern line 95 TS to the Jubilee,
re-marshalled as seven-car units, with all the new trains going to the
Northern Line, so they're kept together (or vice versa). The 95TS isn't
compatible with the older technology 96TS Jubilee line stock, but they look
almost the same and the cars are the same size. So one train must be made
up of one type or the other card, but trains of both type should be able to
mix on a line.

I would think that with such a large order, the new trains will have newer
technology than the existing stock, which will be about 25 years older. But
TfL may want them to look the same for passengers, so the windows may be
the same. The performance will probably also be the same as they will have
to run together on the same line, unless they're all put on one branch of
the Northern line (see below).

Alstom must be the favourite to win the order, but I assume there will have
to be a competitive tender, so Bombardier, say, could win. Maybe it'll be a
variant of your favourite thick-walled 2009 stock?

And if they go ahead with the proposal to split the Northern into two
separate lines, we could imagine all of this new fleet being on one of
those branches, the 95TS on the other branch, and the Jubilee having a mix
of its older 96TS and cascaded 95TS from the Northern.

London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:53:39 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Alstom must be the favourite to win the order, but I assume there will have
to be a competitive tender, so Bombardier, say, could win. Maybe it'll be a
variant of your favourite thick-walled 2009 stock?

IMO the 2009 is actually a nice train except for the bloody stupid interior
layout. If they pushed the seats right back they could have 2 rows of people
standing in the isles like on the 92 stock on the central (at the places where
the seats are right up against the windows) instead of just 1.

--
Spud

London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains

In message
-septemb
er.org, Recliner wrote:
This seems to imply that overhead + 4th rail is in some way harder to do
than overhead + 3rd rail... I would have thought it would be the
other way around.

I think it just so happens that no fourth rail DC trains normally share
tracks with any overhead line AC trains.

I can't think of any instances: I'm fairly sure the tracks are
segregated throughout at Barking and Upminster.

Euston used to have shared 4th rail and AC; that section was converted
to 3rd rail at some point in (IIRC) the 1980s.

Not sure if the Willesden TMD entry road is shared 4th and AC or just
shared 3rd and AC.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 23:43:43 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message
-septemb
er.org, Recliner wrote:
This seems to imply that overhead + 4th rail is in some way harder to do
than overhead + 3rd rail... I would have thought it would be the
other way around.

I think it just so happens that no fourth rail DC trains normally share
tracks with any overhead line AC trains.

I can't think of any instances: I'm fairly sure the tracks are
segregated throughout at Barking and Upminster.

Euston used to have shared 4th rail and AC; that section was converted
to 3rd rail at some point in (IIRC) the 1980s.

Not sure if the Willesden TMD entry road is shared 4th and AC or just
shared 3rd and AC.

It would have been converted at the same time as the rest of the DC
line (and the 4th rail has since been removed) so the same as the
shared lines into Euston. While the sectional appendix instructs that
non-LU trains are not to enter Stonebridge Park depot or Queens Park
sheds under any circumstances there seems to be no converse
instruction preventing a disabled LU train or vehicle from being
shunted into Willesden TMD if necessary.

London Tubes: Unexpected locations of underground trains