In message , at 10:39:50 on Tue, 18 Oct
2016, d remarked:

And if you can't find someone you can't stalk them at work either can
you? And if you could find them at work you could follow them home too.

It's not necessarily the case that every work stalker follows the victim
home.

You'd expect that as the obvious escalation though.

It's one possible escalation. Another might be making false complaints
to the boss about the victim, which depending on their job might be
quite serious for them (falsely accusing a teacher of interfering with
children, for example).
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:51:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:39:50 on Tue, 18 Oct
2016, d remarked:

And if you can't find someone you can't stalk them at work either can
you? And if you could find them at work you could follow them home too.

It's not necessarily the case that every work stalker follows the victim
home.

You'd expect that as the obvious escalation though.

It's one possible escalation. Another might be making false complaints
to the boss about the victim, which depending on their job might be
quite serious for them (falsely accusing a teacher of interfering with
children, for example).

Thats malicious, but its not stalking as most people would interpret it
though.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:59:48 on Tue, 18 Oct
2016, d remarked:
And if you can't find someone you can't stalk them at work either can
you? And if you could find them at work you could follow them home too.

It's not necessarily the case that every work stalker follows the victim
home.

You'd expect that as the obvious escalation though.

It's one possible escalation. Another might be making false complaints
to the boss about the victim, which depending on their job might be
quite serious for them (falsely accusing a teacher of interfering with
children, for example).

Thats malicious, but its not stalking as most people would interpret it
though.

It is if you are doing it as a course of conduct (two or more things
which harass the victim). Almost no Stalker stops at #1.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Just curious - does anyone know what form the architecture will take, will it
be like the JLE, crossrail or something completely new? Also I presume the 2
new stations will have platform doors too which I imagine will mean some new
kit on the trains - unless its already installed.

The stations are being designed in line with the TfL Design Idiom.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf

Look at the references to "2015 palette" and this will give a clue as
to what the new stns will look like in terms of their finish.

They are fairly basic in their design with minimal clutter and
complication and from the artists impressions I have seen look fairly
unremarkable. Don't expect them to be icons of architectural
brilliance.

There is a project page at
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-informatio...line-extension

and a link from that page to loads of documents. I can't readily find
the artists impressions of the stations I've seen but they may be
somewhere on the project / documents pages.

We do know that the developer of BPS has changed their designs for the
over station development which has caused design changes in the tube
station. We also know that there is a "commercial discussion" ongoing
about who pays for what. LU was previously on schedule before the
developer changed their mind and the project is now umpteen weeks
late.

No idea about PEDs but I suspect they may not be installed at just two
stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not
yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains
for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also
don't know if the door spacings will be identical to existing stock or
not. Even a marginal difference could present issues with PEDs but
obviously LU would want to minimise any such problems.

I thought that one of the requirements for the new stock was that it was
externally identical to the current 95TS trains (including the cabs, so
drivers didnt need special training), but that they use modern technology
below the floor?

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not
yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains
for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also

I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics
(I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy
of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler
and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting
the contract.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not
yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains
for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also

I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics
(I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy
of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler
and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting
the contract.

They will have modern electrics, but why would Bombardier get the contract
if they were identical? It had nothing to do with the 95/96 stock.

Alstom is the almost certain winner of the deal, as it built the current
95/96 fleets. Also, note that the newer 95 stock has more modern drive
trains than the slightly older 96 stock.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:26:18 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

I thought that one of the requirements for the new stock was that it was
externally identical to the current 95TS trains (including the cabs, so
drivers didnt need special training), but that they use modern technology
below the floor?

It probably is but the procurement process is not yet complete and
while I agree with your other post about Alstom being the front runner
we must wait to see what happens. Obviously as close to identical or
identical is highly desirable but I was only suggesting that there may
be some small differences. A matter of millimetres here or there with
door positions could cause issues about how PEDs, if they were to be
fitted, would work across a mixed fleet.

I also don't see PEDs being fitted at two stations with all the
interfaces and changes to on board software on a large train fleet
that would be necessary. I also don't see TfL tying themselves into
PEDs with one door spacing that would be completely incompatible with
the likely door spacing on the NTfL.

I agree that PEDs are unlikely at these two new stations, but probably not
because of NTfL, which isn't planned for the Northern Line, whose fleet is
unlikely to be replaced for another 25 or so years. That's probably longer
than the service life of PEDs.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:46:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not
yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains
for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also

I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics
(I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy
of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler
and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting
the contract.

They will have modern electrics, but why would Bombardier get the contract
if they were identical? It had nothing to do with the 95/96 stock.

Alstom is the almost certain winner of the deal, as it built the current
95/96 fleets. Also, note that the newer 95 stock has more modern drive
trains than the slightly older 96 stock.

I thought Bombadier had bought Alstoms train business in the UK a while back
but it seems not. But weren't they built in Brum?

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:46:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not
yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains
for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also

I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics
(I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy
of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler
and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting
the contract.

They will have modern electrics, but why would Bombardier get the contract
if they were identical? It had nothing to do with the 95/96 stock.

Alstom is the almost certain winner of the deal, as it built the current
95/96 fleets. Also, note that the newer 95 stock has more modern drive
trains than the slightly older 96 stock.

I thought Bombadier had bought Alstoms train business in the UK a while back
but it seems not. But weren't they built in Brum?

The original ones were assembled in Washwood Heath, in the former MetCam
factory that built many previous LU fleets, including the 59, 62, 67, 72,
73, D78 and 83 fleets. That factory was subsequently closed by Alstom, so
the top-up Jubilee 96TS order was built in an Alstom plant in Barcelona.

Bombardier only has one train factory in the UK, in Derby, which it
acquired when it took over Adtranz. That factory built the 92, 09 and S
stock fleets. It had nothing to do with the 95/96 or older LU fleets.