On 21/03/2019 16:10, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:20:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
True. There does seem to be conflicting information wrt the 2009 stock
depending on what source you read. Wikipedia says its wider than other tube
stock - it isn't, but what it does have is a clearly more vertical profile
on the sides before the body starts to curve over. I suspect bashing the
tunnel
at the top of the doors on curves is probably the real issue.


It's the same height as other tube stock, but 40mm wider than the 67 stock
it replaced, which was the previous widest stock. You may be right that the

That depends on which part of wikipedia you believe. The text says its wider
but it says 8ft 7in for the width, whereas the width for the 1967 stock was
apparently 8ft 8in. You pays your money....

I suspect only Bombardier and a few test guys really know.

The real question is where do 2009 stock actually get their brakes tested.

--
Basil Jet - Current favourite song...
Spratleys Japs - Hands (Marc Riley session)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTFmVrE1WAc

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:20:53 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/03/2019 16:10, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:20:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
True. There does seem to be conflicting information wrt the 2009 stock
depending on what source you read. Wikipedia says its wider than other tube

stock - it isn't, but what it does have is a clearly more vertical profile
on the sides before the body starts to curve over. I suspect bashing the
tunnel
at the top of the doors on curves is probably the real issue.


It's the same height as other tube stock, but 40mm wider than the 67 stock
it replaced, which was the previous widest stock. You may be right that the

That depends on which part of wikipedia you believe. The text says its wider
but it says 8ft 7in for the width, whereas the width for the 1967 stock was
apparently 8ft 8in. You pays your money....

I suspect only Bombardier and a few test guys really know.

The real question is where do 2009 stock actually get their brakes tested.

At every station. The ATO doesn't mess about, finesse is not part of its
programming

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:20:53 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/03/2019 16:10, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:20:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
True. There does seem to be conflicting information wrt the 2009 stock
depending on what source you read. Wikipedia says its wider than other tube

stock - it isn't, but what it does have is a clearly more vertical profile
on the sides before the body starts to curve over. I suspect bashing the
tunnel
at the top of the doors on curves is probably the real issue.


It's the same height as other tube stock, but 40mm wider than the 67 stock
it replaced, which was the previous widest stock. You may be right that the

That depends on which part of wikipedia you believe. The text says its wider
but it says 8ft 7in for the width, whereas the width for the 1967 stock was
apparently 8ft 8in. You pays your money....

I suspect only Bombardier and a few test guys really know.

The real question is where do 2009 stock actually get their brakes tested.

At every station. The ATO doesn't mess about, finesse is not part of its
programming



Yes, the Northfields test track is really about testing new brake designs
or materials, particularly in wet conditions. It's not for routine testing
of existing trains.

As the Victoria line is entirely underground, it doesn't need tests in
simulated rainy conditions, so maybe the 2009 stock has no need to be
tested there.

In message , at 17:13:49 on Thu, 21 Mar
2019, Recliner remarked:

As the Victoria line is entirely underground,

Apart from the depot at Northumberland Park.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:13:49 on Thu, 21 Mar
2019, Recliner remarked:

As the Victoria line is entirely underground,

Apart from the depot at Northumberland Park.

Yes, we know — why do you think I worded my comment the way I did?

In message , at 22:46:49 on Thu, 21 Mar
2019, Recliner remarked:

As the Victoria line is entirely underground,

Apart from the depot at Northumberland Park.

Yes, we know — why do you think I worded my comment the way I did?

I have no idea. It was almost suggesting that efficient brakes were not
required in the depot in rainy weather.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:46:49 on Thu, 21 Mar
2019, Recliner remarked:

As the Victoria line is entirely underground,

Apart from the depot at Northumberland Park.

Yes, we know — why do you think I worded my comment the way I did?

I have no idea. It was almost suggesting that efficient brakes were not
required in the depot in rainy weather.

Perhaps you could tell us how often they run trains full of passengers at
50 mph through the depot?

On 21/03/2019 17:13, Recliner wrote:

Yes, the Northfields test track is really about testing new brake designs
or materials, particularly in wet conditions.

Really? Surely that would be done in Derby or Japan or somewhere.

It's not for routine testing
of existing trains.

--
Basil Jet - Current favourite song...
Spratleys Japs - Hands (Marc Riley session)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTFmVrE1WAc

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:30:59 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 21/03/2019 17:13, Recliner wrote:

Yes, the Northfields test track is really about testing new brake designs
or materials, particularly in wet conditions.

Really? Surely that would be done in Derby or Japan or somewhere.


Japan? No LU trains have ever come from Japan, and none are planned
to.

LU trains typically have a very long life, and it's not uncommon for
new brake materials to be introduced along the way. For example,
perhaps the older stocks once had asbestos brake pads/linings. These
would obviously have had to be replaced with new materials, and tested
in both dry and wet conditions. Perhaps WSP was retrofitted to some
stock(s) during the long life, or the WSP technology improved. Again,
testing would be needed.