On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:22:50 +0100, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:36:02 +0800 "DW downunder" noname wrote:
AIUI, the '09 units on test were road delivered. They are out ofgauge
for other tube lines (we're talking maybe 20-25mm) ...

Makes you wonder why they bothered. An extra centimeter of space either
side of the carraige (assuming its not taken up by fittings) which will
make
almost zero noticable difference to passenger comfort, against being able
to haul or even use the trains anywhere on the network in the future.

If other posts to this thread are right, 4cm extra width adds about 0.6
sqm floor space. Crush-loaded, that must be about 3 extra people per
carriage. That's useful capacity.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:22:13 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

The ever-reliable Wiki source says that the 2009 stock is 2.68m wide and
the 1973 stock 2.629, so the 2009 stock is apparently 5cm or 2" wider.
It also says that, "Unlike the 1967 Tube Stock, the trains are built 40
millimetres (1.6 in) wider to take advantage of the Victoria line's
slightly larger than normal loading gauge compared to the other deep
level tube lines."


Ironically, one of the reasons why the Victoria Line tunnel was built
to a larger diameter was to reduce air resistance. ;-)


The internal diameter was (IIRC) 12'3" (3734mm) for cast iron and 12'6"
(3810mm) for concrete lining segments. This compares with the Yerkes'
standard of 11'8 1/4" (3562mm).

ISTM that the extra car width lies within the general Yerkes tunnel internal
diameter, and may be part of the process of reducing gaps between vehicle
and platform. While it was suggested above that 20mm each side won't add up
to much, in a 16m vehicle, it adds two (to the standing capacity), thus 16
to the total train capacity - at crush loading, the extra space is
equivalent to 20 extra pax per train. This is how bean counters work, of
course. But if it means you get to that appointment on time (armpits or no),
you're not going to knock it well some might!

DW down under

This compares

On 13 Aug 2009 12:30:29 GMT
Adrian wrote:


Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Air conditioning is an interesting topic. It does use a small
additional amount of fuel, but in a car, that additional amount is
smaller than would be caused by the increased drag when the windows are
opened.

Got a reference for that?

Bruce seems to be the sort of person dumb enough to fall for that rather
ancient open window rubbish. An open window may well cost more fuel at 70mph
than air con. I suspect the same however is not true when stationary in
a traffic jam or any in town traffic speed.

B2003

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:38:28 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
If other posts to this thread are right, 4cm extra width adds about 0.6
sqm floor space. Crush-loaded, that must be about 3 extra people per
carriage. That's useful capacity.

Well it would be if people could be broken up into pieces and slotted into
the carraige in odd little bits of free space. But anyway who's been in a
tube when its packed and your back is against the door knows that an extra
inch behind you is going to make bugger all difference to the amount of
people who can squeeze on.

B2003

wrote in message
On 13 Aug 2009 12:30:29 GMT
Adrian wrote:


Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Air conditioning is an interesting topic. It does use a small
additional amount of fuel, but in a car, that additional amount is
smaller than would be caused by the increased drag when the windows
are opened.

Got a reference for that?

Bruce seems to be the sort of person dumb enough to fall for that
rather ancient open window rubbish. An open window may well cost more
fuel at 70mph than air con. I suspect the same however is not true
when stationary in a traffic jam or any in town traffic speed.

This article suggests the break-even speed is somewhere around 40mph (I
suspect the break-even speed would be lower in a very aerodynamic car,
and higher in a brick-like SUV).
http://news.carjunky.com/air-conditioning-versus-open-windows-abc477.shtml

wrote in message
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:38:28 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
If other posts to this thread are right, 4cm extra width adds about
0.6 sqm floor space. Crush-loaded, that must be about 3 extra people
per carriage. That's useful capacity.

Well it would be if people could be broken up into pieces and slotted
into the carraige in odd little bits of free space. But anyway who's
been in a tube when its packed and your back is against the door
knows that an extra inch behind you is going to make bugger all
difference to the amount of people who can squeeze on.

I think the internal size will be more than 40mm wider, due to thinner
carriage walls, but of course that's nothing to do with tunnel size.

On Aug 13, 12:11 pm, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:35:45PM -0700, allanbonnetracy wrote:
Aren=92t the vast majority of car journeys less than three miles or
something like that?

For journeys of such short length, cycling is an entirely viable
alternative.

There's the small problem that while I can leave my car unattended on
the street it doesn't get stolen, because it's too heavy to lift and is
easily traceable, while if I were to leave a bike unattended on the
street, it would be. And there's nowhere else to leave it, because I,
like an awful lot of people, live in a small flat.

Cycling is *not* a viable alternative for an awful lot of people.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Hail Caesar! Those about to vi ^[ you!

Well, you might hope for the odd car parking space to be removed and
replaced with stands for a dozen bikes. It happens occasionally....
Hypothetically you could even have bike lockers on the street for
fullish security. A folder is also handy for carrying up to a flat.
Tim

Colin McKenzie wrote:

If other posts to this thread are right, 4cm extra width adds about
0.6 sqm floor space. Crush-loaded, that must be about 3 extra people
per carriage. That's useful capacity.

Here's one of them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...kin416_bbc.jpg

On 13 Aug, 13:59, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:38:28 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
If other posts to this thread are right, 4cm extra width adds about
0.6 sqm floor space. Crush-loaded, that must be about 3 extra people
per carriage. That's useful capacity.

Well it would be if people could be broken up into pieces and slotted
into the carraige in odd little bits of free space. But anyway who's
been in a tube when its packed and your back is against the door
knows that an extra inch behind you is going to make bugger all
difference to the amount of people who can squeeze on.

I think the internal size will be more than 40mm wider, due to thinner
carriage walls, but of course that's nothing to do with tunnel size.

And the recent trend for think, clunky walls and obstructions takes a
lot of explaining if such measurements are deemed to be important. No
one seemed to care in the 1990s.

There's no evidence that the shape of a human body was taken into
account at all. Look at how the Jubilee stock provides space for a
bum and legs, above which no torso can be fitted, due to the passenger
alarm and thick bulkhead*.

If the walls are going to be thinner in 2009 stock, that's a Good
Thing, but I agree that making stock non-cascadable is of doubtful
benefit.


*but a flip-up seat would fit nicely

On 12 Aug 2009 21:52:45 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:
Recliner wrote
Yes, that's a very good point. Imagine if every house in the street was
charging its electric car(s) overnight -- it's pretty unlikely that the
local sub-station and wiring could handle the load. It may be OK if just
one or two houses use 13amp sockets, but not if the whole street is
doing it for hours on end.


Many neighbourhoods were sized on the basis of many night storage
heaters, remember them ?

So probably only little local difficulties until electrical cars reach
10 % or so.


And long before it became a problem, separately supplied charging
pillars would have been installed.

Interesting that Renault's stand at the Frankfurt Motor Show is
displaying only electric cars. No-one should be in any doubt that
mass production of electric cars is going to happen.