"MIG" wrote in message

On 11 Aug, 15:59, Roland Perry wrote:

As mentioned upthread, for reasons of tight space and twisty track,
I think it highly unlikely that any LU tube stock will have
walk-through inter-car connections. After all, just think how
narrow and low the doorways would have to be!

"Since Metronet's collapse London Underground claims to have
saved £2.5bn through the renegotiation of contracts, revising
the upgrade programme, better procurement and operational
efficiencies. This new work will be complemented by a fleet of
191 new air-conditioned walk through trains. It will mean
passengers will experience a more reliable service, with 50%
greater capacity."

http://www.contractjournal.com/Artic.../70166/london-
underground-re-tenders-mammoth-metronet-signalling-job.html

Or are those SSL?


Bound to be. There's no plans to air-condition anything tube-sized
either, is there?

There was talk of a proposed experiment on the 1973 Picc trains, but
I've not heard anything of it lately. The idea was to freeze ice in the
above-ground parts of the line, which would then be used to cool the
trains in the tunnels. I wonder where they'd have fitted it all in?

"MIG" wrote in message

On 11 Aug, 15:38, "Recliner" wrote:


I wouldn't be surprised if the 1967 stock was in a better condition
than 1972 stock anyway, not having been subjected to the bends, bounce
and manual driving of the bakerloo.

I wonder if some will cascaded, or maybe it doesn't have the full
manual driving equipment?

Well, aren't many of the Victoria line inner cabs from 1972 stock
anyway? And I think the trailers are the same anyway. So, if they
needed more stock for the Bakerloo line, they could do a sort of reverse
cascase. I'm not sure the trains could be used on the Picc, though.

wrote in message
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:38:45 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:

As mentioned upthread, for reasons of tight space and twisty track, I
think it highly unlikely that any LU tube stock will have
walk-through inter-car connections. After all, just think how
narrow and low the doorways would have to be!

Doesn't seem to be a problem for people in bendy buses when they go
around corners.

But bendies are wider, higher and much squarer than tube stock, so the
opening is far larger. Also, as articulated vehicles, the two halves
don't move much relative to each other, unlike non-articulated
carriages -- just look how much the adjacent carriage moves up and down
when a tube train is bouncing along.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:21:30 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:


wrote in message
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:38:45 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:

As mentioned upthread, for reasons of tight space and twisty track, I
think it highly unlikely that any LU tube stock will have
walk-through inter-car connections. After all, just think how
narrow and low the doorways would have to be!

Doesn't seem to be a problem for people in bendy buses when they go
around corners.

But bendies are wider, higher and much squarer than tube stock, so the

I dunno , I reckon the height would be pretty close if you measure from
rail level. And I suspect the width is pretty much the same.

don't move much relative to each other, unlike non-articulated
carriages -- just look how much the adjacent carriage moves up and down
when a tube train is bouncing along.

Yes, there is that.

B2003

On 11 Aug, 16:18, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message



On 11 Aug, 15:38, "Recliner" wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the 1967 stock was in a better condition
than 1972 stock anyway, not having been subjected to the bends, bounce
and manual driving of the bakerloo.

I wonder if some will cascaded, or maybe it doesn't have the full
manual driving equipment?

Well, aren't many of the Victoria line inner cabs from 1972 stock
anyway? *And I think the trailers are the same anyway. So, if they
needed more stock for the Bakerloo line, they could do a sort of reverse
cascase. I'm not sure the trains could be used on the Picc, though.

Yes, I think some 1972 Mark 1 coaches from the Northern are on the
Victoria.

The 1973 stock is different, with longer coaches (and less of them),
so there probably isn't much scope for a cascade there.

On Aug 11, 3:44*pm, wrote:
Not that I can recall. The Bakerloo is the only other Metronet line with
old trains, but they're not due for replacement for a few years yet. Had
Metronet remained in its original form, I'm sure these would just have
been follow-ons from the Bombardier 2009 stock (rather like the Met-Cam
1972 stock was based on the 1967 TS), but TfL is much more likely to put
it out to tender.

Is it really to much to ask for LUL to stick with a common design to save
on the cost of a new one as opposed to just adding extra orders onto the book?
Not to mention being able to spread staff maintenance expertise over more than
1 line, saving on the cost of spares etc. While train builders seem to like to
pretend they're designing the space shuttles replacement there really hasn't
been any large scale new tech in trains for the last 10 years so why bother
with yet another design?

Do you understand how train procurement works?

The client (so Metronet for the S-stock, TfL for the new Bakerloo
stock) asks a manufacturer to quote for providing a certain number of
trains in service over their expected lifetime, to a particular set of
specifications. The manufacturer provides maintenance, is responsible
for all maintenance costs, and has to pay the client compensation if
availability targets aren't met.

Different manufacturers bid for the trains based on their expected
costs of providing and maintaining the trains. If a particular
manufacturer has just built 47 Tube trains and 191 sub-surface trains,
it's quite likely that their expected costs will be lower. However, if
another manufacturer is willing to underbid them (e.g. they're
desperate to break into the UK market, or the first supplier is taking
the mick because they think they're a shoe-in), then the client will
save money compared with picking the original supplier.

In other words, when LU puts the Bakerloo contract out to tender,
Bombardier will be favourite to win it with something pretty similar
to the S-stock for the reasons you list (ie it'll be cheaper for them
to build and maintain the trains), and if someone else wins that's
because they want to offer us an even better deal that outweighs the
economies of scale.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Commuter wrote:
Sorry - not sure exactly what they're called, but why is it only the
SSL and Overground that are to get trains that you can walk all the
way through (like a bendy bus)?

Is there something on the Tube lines that stops this design being
practical?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=

Note that the Vic Line was built after the "wayleave" concept was abolished,
so has graceful curves which make no attempt to stay beneath streets. I
don't think walk-through trains could ever be considered on the earlier
lines. The Jubilee Line uses fairly old tunnels from Baker Street to
Finchley Road, so I'm not sure about that one.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:


On Aug 11, 3:44=A0pm, wrote:
Not that I can recall. The Bakerloo is the only other Metronet line with
old trains, but they're not due for replacement for a few years yet. Had
Metronet remained in its original form, I'm sure these would just have
been follow-ons from the Bombardier 2009 stock (rather like the Met-Cam
1972 stock was based on the 1967 TS), but TfL is much more likely to put
it out to tender.

Is it really to much to ask for LUL to stick with a common design to save
on the cost of a new one as opposed to just adding extra orders onto the =
book?
Not to mention being able to spread staff maintenance expertise over more=
than
1 line, saving on the cost of spares etc. While train builders seem to li=
ke to
pretend they're designing the space shuttles replacement there really has=
n't
been any large scale new tech in trains for the last 10 years so why both=
er
with yet another design?

Do you understand how train procurement works?

Yes, but in the long term I think it would be better to have a few common
types of trains rather than saving a few quid with some other manufacturer
who'll cut everything to the bone to win the contract.

Other metro systems use this approach , I don't see why LUL can't. Its not
as if LULs approach has brought us particularly good trains so far anyway.

B2003

"John B" wrote in message


In other words, when LU puts the Bakerloo contract out to tender,
Bombardier will be favourite to win it with something pretty similar
to the S-stock for the reasons you list (ie it'll be cheaper for them
to build and maintain the trains), and if someone else wins that's
because they want to offer us an even better deal that outweighs the
economies of scale.

Hopefully, Bombardier's Bakerloo bid will be based on the 2009, not the
S stock!

However, they won't be able to just offer more 2009 stock. For one
thing, I think the 2009 stock is too big for the Bakerloo and Picc
tunnels, so even if Bombardier's bid(s) for these lines look like the
2009 stock, they'll actually be slightly smaller.

"MIG" wrote in message

On 11 Aug, 16:18, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message



On 11 Aug, 15:38, "Recliner" wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the 1967 stock was in a better condition
than 1972 stock anyway, not having been subjected to the bends,
bounce and manual driving of the bakerloo.

I wonder if some will cascaded, or maybe it doesn't have the full
manual driving equipment?

Well, aren't many of the Victoria line inner cabs from 1972 stock
anyway? And I think the trailers are the same anyway. So, if they
needed more stock for the Bakerloo line, they could do a sort of
reverse cascase. I'm not sure the trains could be used on the Picc,
though.

Yes, I think some 1972 Mark 1 coaches from the Northern are on the
Victoria.

The 1973 stock is different, with longer coaches (and less of them),
so there probably isn't much scope for a cascade there.

It might be possible to run complete 7-car 1972 stock on the Picc,
though I'm not sure that there's a shortage of 1973 stock.