"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 13:18:32 on Tue, 11 Aug
2009, Commuter remarked:
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)?

I thought there were plans for such trains in the Underground (the
ex-Metrolink contract).

I think the 2009 Victoria line trains are the only tube trains ordered
by Metronet.

In message , at 14:42:18 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked:
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)?

I thought there were plans for such trains in the Underground (the
ex-Metrolink contract).

I think the 2009 Victoria line trains are the only tube trains ordered
by Metronet.

There originally seemed to be bigger plans, for more new trains.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 14:42:18 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked:
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)?

I thought there were plans for such trains in the Underground (the
ex-Metrolink contract).

I think the 2009 Victoria line trains are the only tube trains
ordered by Metronet.

There originally seemed to be bigger plans, for more new trains.

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.

I assume Tube Lines will also put the Piccadilly replacement stock out
to tender, but not just yet -- perhaps the 1972 and 1973 replacements
will be a single new stock, much as the S stock replaces the A, C and D
stocks. Conceivably, Bombardier could win both those contracts as well,
but Alston, for one, is likely to be keen to bid.

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!

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:38:45 +0100
"Recliner" 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?

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.

B2003

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 Aug 11, 4:28*pm, wrote:

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

wrote:

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.

No way - or rather, I have to disagree with you on that one - I know
bendies well, and there's *much* more space in the articulated bit of
a bendy than there is in a tube carriage.


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.

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

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

On Aug 11, 5:25*pm, wrote:
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.

Better for whom? If we were buying the trains on the traditional "you
deliver them, then you go away and we maintain them" model, then I'd
see your logic - but as it is, all cost savings are real over the
train's life, not just short-term.

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..

For the bits of LUL which are comparable to other metro systems (ie
the interoperable, interoperated, 'lines are based on services offered
rather than physical track' bits), a single approach is now being
taken for the first time ever, which is the S-stock.

For the bits of LUL that are self-contained and can't sensibly be
operated in any other service pattern than today (it'd be technically
possible to swap branches NW of Baker Street between the Jubilee and
the Bakerloo I guess, and there's obviously the Northern Line split
potential, but that's hair-splitting), the benefits that arise from
doing that don't really exist.

I'd also say that the A, C, 67, 73, 92 and 95 stocks are among the
best metro trains from their respective eras I've been on globally
[the 83 and D stocks lose due to their moronic door arrangements]. The
09 looks pretty impressive too, as do the pics and mock-ups of the S.

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