|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very good? Anna Noyd-Dryver |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On 01/05/2021 18:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very good? Anna Noyd-Dryver You've never heard of the SPV-2000, I'm guessing. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very good? Given that it was based on the pretty successful D78, I wonder how they got it so wrong? |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On 01 May 2021 20:29:47 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote: In uk.railway wrote: The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. Wikipedia: With the Jubilee Line Extension in mind, it was originally planned that the 1983 Stock would be heavily refurbished to run alongside the newer 1996 Stock that entered service on the Jubilee line in 1997; the plans included replacing the single leaf doors with double doors to speed up passenger boarding. The 1983 Stock was to be given similar interiors. This was abandoned due to the cost being only 10% cheaper than re-equipping the line entirely with the 1996 Stock. Then it was proposed for the 1983 Stock to be added to the refurbished 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly line and serve the Rayners Lane - Uxbridge section of the line. This was also abandoned on the grounds of cost. Eh? Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge? Ot did I mis-read it? New car or refurb old banger for 90% of the cost? Your choice. Theo |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 1 May 2021 17:57:28 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very good? Their only issue was single leaf doors. There was nothing wrong with them mechanically. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On 01 May 2021 20:29:47 +0100 (BST)
Theo wrote: In uk.railway wrote: The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. Wikipedia: With the Jubilee Line Extension in mind, it was originally planned that the 1983 Stock would be heavily refurbished to run alongside the newer 1996 Stock that entered service on the Jubilee line in 1997; the plans included replacing the single leaf doors with double doors to speed up passenger boarding. The 1983 Stock was to be given similar interiors. This was abandoned due to the cost being only 10% cheaper than re-equipping the line entirely with the 1996 Stock. Then it was proposed for the 1983 Stock to be added to the refurbished 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly line and serve the Rayners Lane - Uxbridge section of the line. This was also abandoned on the grounds of cost. What cost, putting new line stickers in the vehicles? Sounds like an excuse. There were a couple of them sitting at cockfosters for years mouldering away then one week they vanished. New car or refurb old banger for 90% of the cost? Your choice. Its not just the financial cost, its the enviromental cost. Binning a few thousand tons of train takes a large amount of energy to recycle all the metal and no doubt the plastic and fabrics went to landfill. So in this case I'd say refurb. Plus if they were going to run on the lightly used uxbridge branch of the picc they wouldn't need anything done to them other than a clean up. Its the same excuse with the 373s, "Oh we can't find a buyer or use for them". Well ****ing well try harder. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 1 May 2021 22:51:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very good? Given that it was based on the pretty successful D78, I wonder how they got it so wrong? There was little wrong with them from a passengers POV. I travelled on them and found them much more pleasent than the other tired tube offerings at the time. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail about what was wrong with them. Some other sources: There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what are they supposed to align with? and that the doors were of single leaf design, rather then the 73TS double doors and that the doors were significantly slower in operation than the 73TS. They changed the door motors in the 73 stock (not an improvement IMO but I'm sure they had their reasons) so they could have done the same with the 83. As well as various electrical/mechanical/structural problems, one of the reasons for the downfall of the class was the mid-carriage single-leaf doors, clearly seen here, which extended station dwell times due to the time it took passengers to join and alight from the carriages through the relatively narrow door openings. Not an issue out in the sticks as a shuttle service. And if they were to enhance the service in the centre rather than replace old 73 stock then they'd still speed things up regardless of the doors because there'd be less crush to get on each train. Failing that they could always have just used them outside rush hour. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On 01/05/2021 18:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: Recliner wrote: Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS? D stock had rather more in common with 83ts. The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very good? You've never heard of the SPV-2000, I'm guessing. I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail about what was wrong with them. Some other sources: There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt them for the Piccadilly Line, [snip woes of 83ts] I was referring to the American single car DMU "SPV-2000", as referenced by Hounslow above. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:22:31 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 2 May 2021 16:20:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail about what was wrong with them. Some other sources: There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what are they supposed to align with? Future platform doors matched to later stock which wouldn't have repeated the door pattern ? There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering with platform doors. The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of the driver's seat on 1983TS. Maybe, but thats hardly beyond the wit of man to solve. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
In article , Recliner
writes The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on the line. My understanding is that it wasn't that simple. When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many) open stations. Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could find a good use for them at an economic price. /me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them. -- Clive D.W. Feather |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , Recliner writes The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on the line. My understanding is that it wasn't that simple. When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many) open stations. Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could find a good use for them at an economic price. /me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them. I very much doubt it: no room for diesel general sets or large traction batteries under the floor, and completely unsuitable for NR lines. Also, which railway would want LU Tube stock that wasn't good enough for LU? The IoW had turned it down, too. But why wasn't it used to replace the 72TS on the Bakerloo, just as it had done on the Jubilee? |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:22:31 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 2 May 2021 16:20:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail about what was wrong with them. Some other sources: There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what are they supposed to align with? Future platform doors matched to later stock which wouldn't have repeated the door pattern ? There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering with platform doors. That won't stop the use of platform doors; it just requires a suitable design. The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of the driver's seat on 1983TS. Maybe, but thats hardly beyond the wit of man to solve. Not if the place where you want to insert your window contains a necessary structural component which would make it cheaper to build a new vehicle. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Mon, 3 May 2021 20:31:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: Clive D.W. Feather wrote: In article , Recliner writes The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on the line. My understanding is that it wasn't that simple. When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many) open stations. Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could find a good use for them at an economic price. /me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them. I very much doubt it: no room for diesel general sets or large traction batteries under the floor, and completely unsuitable for NR lines. Also, which railway would want LU Tube stock that wasn't good enough for LU? The IoW had turned it down, too. But why wasn't it used to replace the 72TS on the Bakerloo, just as it had done on the Jubilee? Were there enough fit for use ? Reliability was a problem; refurbishment cost for use on other lines was also not a lot cheaper than simply buying new stock. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2021 20:31:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: Clive D.W. Feather wrote: In article , Recliner writes The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on the line. My understanding is that it wasn't that simple. When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many) open stations. Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could find a good use for them at an economic price. /me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them. I very much doubt it: no room for diesel general sets or large traction batteries under the floor, and completely unsuitable for NR lines. Also, which railway would want LU Tube stock that wasn't good enough for LU? The IoW had turned it down, too. But why wasn't it used to replace the 72TS on the Bakerloo, just as it had done on the Jubilee? Were there enough fit for use ? Reliability was a problem; refurbishment cost for use on other lines was also not a lot cheaper than simply buying new stock. Why would they have needed refurbishment to run on the Bakerloo? Just change the line diagrams. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC), wrote: There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering with platform doors. That won't stop the use of platform doors; it just requires a suitable design. Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse. The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of the driver's seat on 1983TS. Maybe, but thats hardly beyond the wit of man to solve. Not if the place where you want to insert your window contains a necessary structural component which would make it cheaper to build a new vehicle. I doubt 1 window would influence structural integretary that much. They're frame based, not monocoque. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 1 May 2021 22:51:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: Given that it was based on the pretty successful D78, I wonder how they got it so wrong? I worked on Jubilee Line extension stock in a minor way! GKN Defence (yes you read that right) were the UK company working with whichever of the Japanese companies ( Kawasaki Heavy Industries I think) were up against Metro-Cammell. Kawasaki had had a bad experience doing a refurbishment project on the New York metro so didn't want to go there again. lt was clear London Underground didn't want to split the new build and the refurbishment contracts so our consortium priced the job to make the new build look more attractive. As that's what happened we assumed the others bidders had done the same. 30 years on finding a separate company to undertake the refurbishment would be much easier than it was in the early 90s. Had we have won the body shells would have been made in Japan with fit out and commission at the Telford site. A short test track next to our existing Fighting Vehicle test track was planned. We didn't have a rail connection which seemed a bit of a problem to me but at that time that was well above my pay grade! |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC), wrote: There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering with platform doors. That won't stop the use of platform doors; it just requires a suitable design. Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse. The doors aren't there for the convenience of the passengers. The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of the driver's seat on 1983TS. Maybe, but thats hardly beyond the wit of man to solve. Not if the place where you want to insert your window contains a necessary structural component which would make it cheaper to build a new vehicle. I doubt 1 window would influence structural integretary that much. They're frame based, not monocoque. If you have a thick piece of frame then it will be thick for a reason and you won't be wanting to bore holes through it. However, having now found cab photos in :- https://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/...1983tubeStock/ there is a side view from the driver's seat. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Tue, 4 May 2021 01:22:43 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2021 20:31:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: Clive D.W. Feather wrote: In article , Recliner writes The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes from ticket receipts and central government. When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on the line. My understanding is that it wasn't that simple. When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many) open stations. Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could find a good use for them at an economic price. /me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them. I very much doubt it: no room for diesel general sets or large traction batteries under the floor, and completely unsuitable for NR lines. Also, which railway would want LU Tube stock that wasn't good enough for LU? The IoW had turned it down, too. But why wasn't it used to replace the 72TS on the Bakerloo, just as it had done on the Jubilee? Were there enough fit for use ? Reliability was a problem; refurbishment cost for use on other lines was also not a lot cheaper than simply buying new stock. Why would they have needed refurbishment to run on the Bakerloo? Just change the line diagrams. And fix all the other problems which made them unwanted on the Jubilee Line. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Wed, 05 May 2021 03:42:59 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC), wrote: There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering with platform doors. That won't stop the use of platform doors; it just requires a suitable design. Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse. The doors aren't there for the convenience of the passengers. The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Tue, 04 May 2021 22:33:51 +0100
Nigel Emery wrote: than it was in the early 90s. Had we have won the body shells would have been made in Japan Good thing you didn't then. site. A short test track next to our existing Fighting Vehicle test track was planned. We didn't have a rail connection which seemed a bit of a problem to me but at that time that was well above my pay grade! Wasn't a problem for the 2009 stock that was idiotically made too big** to fit on the piccadilly line so couldn't be taken to the victoria by rail and so had to be bunged on the back of lorries to jam up north london roads instead. ** Yet the design wastes huge amounts of space internally by pushing the seats 4 or 5 inches inwards from the windows with a ledge. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:32:03 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: On Wed, 05 May 2021 03:42:59 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC), wrote: There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering with platform doors. That won't stop the use of platform doors; it just requires a suitable design. Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse. The doors aren't there for the convenience of the passengers. The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas. Platform doors on the Underground are part of the environmental control of more recent tube sections; increased safety is a secondary benefit. In case you hadn't noticed, most Jubilee Line stations (tube or surface including some stations on the Stratford extension) don't have platform doors or unusually wide platforms. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Fri, 07 May 2021 23:35:23 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:32:03 +0000 (UTC), wrote: The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas. Platform doors on the Underground are part of the environmental control of more recent tube sections; increased safety is a secondary Rubbish. benefit. In case you hadn't noticed, most Jubilee Line stations (tube or surface including some stations on the Stratford extension) don't have platform doors or unusually wide platforms. Wow, you think there might be a connection?? |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Fri, 07 May 2021 23:47:06 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:35:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 04 May 2021 22:33:51 +0100 Nigel Emery wrote: than it was in the early 90s. Had we have won the body shells would have been made in Japan Good thing you didn't then. site. A short test track next to our existing Fighting Vehicle test track was planned. We didn't have a rail connection which seemed a bit of a problem to me but at that time that was well above my pay grade! Wasn't a problem for the 2009 stock that was idiotically made too big** to fit on the piccadilly line It was actually made to fit the Victoria Line. snip You are really full of amazing facts today. Yes, we know that, but in doing so it has to be taken to the line by road not rail. If they had used the extra space inside the train it might have been worth it, but they wasted so much of it that there's no more room than in any other stock. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 8 May 2021 09:15:17 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: On Fri, 07 May 2021 23:35:23 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:32:03 +0000 (UTC), wrote: The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas. Platform doors on the Underground are part of the environmental control of more recent tube sections; increased safety is a secondary Rubbish. Rubbish yourself. "one of the main reasons (and justifications) for having PEDs is for ventilation although of course they do have the obvious benefit of preventing people from falling onto the track." https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...m_screen_doors benefit. In case you hadn't noticed, most Jubilee Line stations (tube or surface including some stations on the Stratford extension) don't have platform doors or unusually wide platforms. Wow, you think there might be a connection?? |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
|
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 08 May 2021 10:40:53 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2021 09:15:17 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Fri, 07 May 2021 23:35:23 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:32:03 +0000 (UTC), wrote: The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas. Platform doors on the Underground are part of the environmental control of more recent tube sections; increased safety is a secondary Rubbish. Rubbish yourself. "one of the main reasons (and justifications) for having PEDs is for ventilation although of course they do have the obvious benefit of preventing people from falling onto the track." https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...m_screen_doors No idea what that site is , but clearly neither them nor you have ever been on the tube. The piston effect of the train pulling and pushing air through the tunnel provides plenty of ventilation into the station. In fact the doors actually prevent a lot of that leaving some station platforms uncomfortable on hot days IME when I worked at Canary Wharf particularly London Bridge. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 08 May 2021 10:44:17 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2021 09:16:40 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Yes, we know that, but in doing so it has to be taken to the line by road not rail. If they had used the extra space inside the train it might have been worth it, but they wasted so much of it that there's no more room than in any other stock. You seem to have missed 1)The presence of a maintenance depot at Northumberland Park. No!! Is it?? Who knew! Take a look at a map - its well south of the north circular, never mind the M25 and on a very busy road. 2)The use of road transport for moving stock to/from LU depots on other Underground lines. Not always and it also prevents the stock easily being taken to Neasden for major overhauls. |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2021 10:44:17 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2021 09:16:40 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Yes, we know that, but in doing so it has to be taken to the line by road not rail. If they had used the extra space inside the train it might have been worth it, but they wasted so much of it that there's no more room than in any other stock. You seem to have missed 1)The presence of a maintenance depot at Northumberland Park. No!! Is it?? Who knew! Take a look at a map - its well south of the north circular, never mind the M25 and on a very busy road. It's also right next to a railway line, and it would have been easy to establish at least a temporary connection for delivering the fleet. That would have been much easier than using the usual Ruislip connection. 2)The use of road transport for moving stock to/from LU depots on other Underground lines. Not always and it also prevents the stock easily being taken to Neasden for major overhauls. Why would Victoria line stock be taken to the Jubilee and Met lines depot at Neasden for overhauls? |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 8 May 2021 10:26:15 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: On Sat, 08 May 2021 10:40:53 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: Rubbish yourself. "one of the main reasons (and justifications) for having PEDs is for ventilation although of course they do have the obvious benefit of preventing people from falling onto the track." https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...m_screen_doors No idea what that site is Might I suggest that you follow the link and read the documents on the other end of it, then. It might help you stop looking like an idiot. , but clearly neither them nor you have ever been on the tube. It would be a little odd if nobody from TfL had ever been on the tube. Mark |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2021 10:40:53 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2021 09:15:17 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Rubbish. Rubbish yourself. "one of the main reasons (and justifications) for having PEDs is for ventilation although of course they do have the obvious benefit of preventing people from falling onto the track." https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...m_screen_doors No idea what that site is , It's the official site where Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests are handled. but clearly neither them nor you have ever been on the tube. The piston effect of the train pulling and pushing air through the tunnel provides plenty of ventilation into the station. In fact the doors actually prevent a lot of that leaving some station platforms uncomfortable on hot days IME when I worked at Canary Wharf particularly London Bridge. The piston effect of the trains pumps hot air around the tunnels from one station to another, great. If you visit very hot places like Singapore or Hong Kong you'll find that almost every underground metro station has full-height platform edge doors which completely isolate the air in the tunnels from the air in the platforms. You can then have air-conditioned trains and platforms (both nice and cool); as you step from train to platform or vv. you can feel a layer of very hot tunnel air as you step through it (like those heaters above shop doorways which used to be popular). Used properly, it can be very effective. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
I.O.W reopening delayed.
On Sat, 8 May 2021 10:53:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: No!! Is it?? Who knew! Take a look at a map - its well south of the north circular, never mind the M25 and on a very busy road. It's also right next to a railway line, and it would have been easy to establish at least a temporary connection for delivering the fleet. That would have been much easier than using the usual Ruislip connection. Yes, I'm sure network rail would jump at the chance to close a track on a main commuter line to link up to the depot in order for LU to get their trains. In fact there was a link once but it was removed. Not always and it also prevents the stock easily being taken to Neasden for major overhauls. Why would Victoria line stock be taken to the Jubilee and Met lines depot at Neasden for overhauls? Neasden is (or perhaps was) where all stock got major overhauls. The other depots don't have all the equipment. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk