In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:42:08 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:13:22 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:58:07 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Not exactly as I understand it. They will all go via Bank instead
of some going via Charing Cross.

That's one way of putting it. The other is that all Charing X trains
go to Battersea, with additional trains running via Bank to Morden.
Either way, there will be more stock, and more trains running.

Are these new trains going to be more of the same design or will they
be completely new? One would hope the latter given the current 95
stock are a 20 year old design.

They are required to be a "modern equivalent design" for both Jubilee
and Northern lines. Given the need to avoid excessively different
maintenance regimes and the continuation of the PFI rolliing stock
contract on the Northern I'd be astonished if Alstom didn't get the
work. They run the Northern Line's depots so how else is another
supplier going to provide trains that they then have to have Alstom
maintain? Lots of scope for IPR and warranty issues in that sort of
setup.

Alstom no longer maintain the Jubilee Line trains as the work was
brought back in house. However similar arguments about minimising
differences in maintenance practices, driver stock familiarity etc
still come in to play.

The bigger issue for any supplier will be DDA compliance with the
stock.

Are the original 95 and 96 stock not compliant with the post 2020 regs?

Would they not be grandfathered in?

The problem on the national network is precisely that they lose any such
rights in 2020.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"tim....." wrote

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:31:08 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
...

"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:18:24 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Subject: By Londons Northern Line to Battersea

Why are you changing the subject line? It creates a new thread each
time you do that. It makes a mess.

Original subject was "By Northern Line to Battersea".

Only if your newsreader wants it that way.

Forte Agent has a profile option to show new thread if subject changes,
I
expect you have it ON.

Oh so we all have to use Forte Agent, because Michael R N Dolbear says so?

Read Michael's post carefully. He was making a helpful suggestion to
Agent users, not saying you should use Agent.

.. he said "Only if your newsreaders wants it that way"

.. As my newsreader has no setting for this, he must be telling me to change
newsreader


Since (a) I said "Only if your newsreader [NO S] wants it that way",
directed to the poster who complained who was in fact using Forte Agent

(b) I am myself using Microsoft Live Mail (look at my headers).

(c) I checked only that the thread was not in fact broken and have no idea
what you see or saw.

--
Mike D

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:38 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:31:08 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
...

"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:18:24 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Subject: By Londons Northern Line to Battersea

Why are you changing the subject line? It creates a new thread each
time you do that. It makes a mess.

Original subject was "By Northern Line to Battersea".

Only if your newsreader wants it that way.

Forte Agent has a profile option to show new thread if subject changes, I
expect you have it ON.

Oh so we all have to use Forte Agent, because Michael R N Dolbear says so?

Read Michael's post carefully. He was making a helpful suggestion to
Agent users, not saying you should use Agent.



Well, as an Agent user, I see "new threads" on uk.railway because of
what look like typos:

1. By London Northern Line to Battersea

1. By Londons Northern Line to Battersea

3. By London's Northern Line to Battersea

And all originate with e27002 aurora

I see what appears to be the 'initial' posting "By Northern Line to
Battersea' from uk.transport.london.

I see nothing in Agent that will somehow 'guess' about thread changes
by profile?

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:11:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I refer you to the 2009 stock that they made too big to run on the piccadilly
line so has to be carted in and out of northumberland park by lorry , then
they go and waste the few inches of extra space with extra thick interior
decor.

To be fair, the 2009 stock wasn't specified by TfL, and more's the pity. We

Ok, didn't realise that. You still have to ask "why?" though since a lot of
the people working for metronet would have been the same people who would
have designed the train for LU anyway. Guess we'll never know.

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

Is it not possible to have walk through with non articulated tube stock in
the style of S stock and the 378s?

We've been through this before, and you already know that the answer is
"no". With the small Tube profile and the large amount of relative movement
at the car ends with non-articulated stock, the open gangway would be too
narrow and low to be useful.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

It is worth bearing in mind that there are traction package
differences between the 95 and 96 stocks so mixing those fleets is
perhaps not the best idea.

As I recall, the 96 stock, which, despite the name, is older than the 95
stock, was delivered with GTO traction packages while the 95 stock uses the
later and now standard IGBT system.

This makes me wonder whether the extra 96 stock trains included obsolete GTO
traction packages or whether they have been updated?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:27:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Is it not possible to have walk through with non articulated tube stock in
the style of S stock and the 378s?

We've been through this before, and you already know that the answer is
"no". With the small Tube profile and the large amount of relative movement
at the car ends with non-articulated stock, the open gangway would be too
narrow and low to be useful.

Yes we have been through this before and I never saw a convincing argument
against it. The large amount of relative movement is not an issue for
mainline stock so I see no reason why it would be for tube stock which is
just 9 inches narrower. As for the open gangway being too narrow - it would
be the same width and height as the current door areas so your logic is faulty.

Unless you can come up with a sensible reason against it then perhaps don't
comment on it at all.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:27:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Is it not possible to have walk through with non articulated tube stock in
the style of S stock and the 378s?

We've been through this before, and you already know that the answer is
"no". With the small Tube profile and the large amount of relative movement
at the car ends with non-articulated stock, the open gangway would be too
narrow and low to be useful.

Yes we have been through this before and I never saw a convincing argument
against it. The large amount of relative movement is not an issue for
mainline stock so I see no reason why it would be for tube stock which is
just 9 inches narrower. As for the open gangway being too narrow - it would
be the same width and height as the current door areas so your logic is faulty.

Rubbish. The current doorways aren't aligned except when the trains are
running on straight and level track


Unless you can come up with a sensible reason against it then perhaps don't
comment on it at all.

That's excellent advice for you, as would getting a better memory. Note
that tube lines have tighter curves than main lines. You only seem to
travel on the Victoria line, but perhaps you should live dangerously and
take a ride on the Piccadilly and Central lines one day.

But as you obviously think you know so much more about this topic than
qualified engineers, professional train designers and TfL, why don't you
get a pay rise from being a contract programmer by selling your great
expertise to them?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:17:21 -0800, Nobody wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:38 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:31:08 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
...

"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:18:24 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Subject: By Londons Northern Line to Battersea

Why are you changing the subject line? It creates a new thread each
time you do that. It makes a mess.

Original subject was "By Northern Line to Battersea".

Only if your newsreader wants it that way.

Forte Agent has a profile option to show new thread if subject changes, I
expect you have it ON.

Oh so we all have to use Forte Agent, because Michael R N Dolbear says so?

Read Michael's post carefully. He was making a helpful suggestion to
Agent users, not saying you should use Agent.



Well, as an Agent user, I see "new threads" on uk.railway because of
what look like typos:

1. By London Northern Line to Battersea

1. By Londons Northern Line to Battersea

3. By London's Northern Line to Battersea

And all originate with e27002 aurora

Quite so. I would like to attribute hem to a broken bone in my foot
and copious dsoes of codine. I would like to, but they are just plain
typos. :-)

I see what appears to be the 'initial' posting "By Northern Line to
Battersea' from uk.transport.london.

Correct. The thread started there. IMHO it deseved a wider audience.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:42:23 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:37:50 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:34:24 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Basil
Jet) wrote:

On 2015\12\29 12:14, Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:11:04 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Now that the Circle is a Tea Cup, the Hammersmith and City is no
longer needed. Why not replace it with a Metropolitan service from
Uxbridge to Barking?

Because they wanted the extra services to Hammersmith, but there
isn't enough capacity on the southern side of the Circle for more
Circle line trains. Also, the H&C stations to Barking may not be
long enough for S8 trains.

Indeed they aren't.

Hardly a major problem these days with SDO and walk-through trains,
surely?

One would have thought not. But, we speak of TfL.

You really have no idea at all do you? All this "we speak of TfL"
nonsense is just a ludicrous sweeping statement where your version of
what should happen does not accord with reality. You have no idea
what is considered, what is assessed and what it would cost to deliver
the various options. Is anyone really complaining about the new S
stock trains on the H&C and Circle lines? Anyone? I haven't heard a
single moan about them.

Yes we have had the whingeing from Met Line users but we are now in a
different era from times past in terms of the numbers that need
shifting. We all love to have a seat but never ending increasing
demand means that's simply not a realistic prospect any more.
Expectations will have to shift because it is not feasible nor
affordable to run enough trains of huge length to offer everyone the
prospect of a seat.

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

So S8s east of Aldgate shouldn't be a problem then?

Quite so. On the Portsmouth Direct SWT have various SDO options. Six
Cars @ Rowlands Castle, eight @ Liss and Liphook, etc. But this is
T... oh never mind.

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

--
Colin Rosenstiel