|
Walk-through trains
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? Also, are the 172s going to be like the 378s or the more 'conventional' design like on other BR trains? |
Walk-through trains
On Aug 11, 1:18*pm, 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? Bouncyness and sharp curves, AIUI. Also, are the 172s going to be like the 378s or the more 'conventional' design like on other BR trains? Definitely conventional carriages and conventional-ish seating, although I'm assuming it'll be wide-aisle 2x2 like the SWT 455s. Remember, the aim among all involved is for the 172s not to stay in LO's hands for very long. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Walk-through trains
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). -- Roland Perry |
Walk-through trains
"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. |
Walk-through trains
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 |
Walk-through trains
"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! |
Walk-through trains
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 |
Walk-through trains
On 11 Aug, 15:38, "Recliner" wrote:
"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! 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? |
Walk-through trains
In message , at 15:38:45 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: "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! "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? -- Roland Perry |
Walk-through trains
On 11 Aug, 15:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:38:45 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: "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! * * * * "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? |
Walk-through trains
"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? |
Walk-through trains
"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. |
Walk-through trains
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. |
Walk-through trains
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 |
Walk-through trains
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. |
Walk-through trains
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 |
Walk-through trains
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. |
Walk-through trains
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 |
Walk-through trains
"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. |
Walk-through trains
"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. |
Walk-through trains
On Aug 11, 5:26*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
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! Haha, yes, fail. 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. True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a 2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and setting up a production line from scratch, though. OTOH, Alstom still has the ability to produce 1995/96 stock bodyshells, as it did so a couple of years ago, the 1995 stock uses modern IGBT traction and meets RVAR, and Alstom does the maintenance contract on it - so they ought to be able to put up a reasonably competitive bid. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Walk-through trains
In message , Recliner
writes 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. The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard, there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines. Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill along. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Walk-through trains
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 |
Walk-through trains
"John B" wrote in message
On Aug 11, 5:26 pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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! Haha, yes, fail. 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. True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a 2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and setting up a production line from scratch, though. Indeed, and I bet they had this in mind when designing the 2009 stock. After all, they must have thought they had the Bakerloo order in the bag until Metronet collapsed. OTOH, Alstom still has the ability to produce 1995/96 stock bodyshells, as it did so a couple of years ago, the 1995 stock uses modern IGBT traction and meets RVAR, and Alstom does the maintenance contract on it - so they ought to be able to put up a reasonably competitive bid. Yes, it seems very likely that any Alstom bid would indeed be based on the 1995/6 stock. It produced complete new trains and carriages for the recent Jubilee lengthening project, which went very smoothly (I hope it does as well with the similar Pendo project). That's why I mentioned them, and not Siemens, Hitachi, etc, who may also want to bid for the next big LUL order. |
Walk-through trains
On Aug 11, 5:38*pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. *Last I heard, there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines. Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill along. Not sure I follow here. Surely, since the costs fall on Tubelines, having them responsible for the choice of supplier makes sense - and as you say, makes them likely to pick Almost...? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Walk-through trains
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
In message , Recliner writes 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. The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard, there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines. Ah, I was under the impression that this project had been deferred, thanks to the squeeze on TfL's budget. |
Walk-through trains
"John B" wrote in message
On Aug 11, 5:38 pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard, there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines. Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill along. Not sure I follow here. Surely, since the costs fall on Tubelines, having them responsible for the choice of supplier makes sense - and as you say, makes them likely to pick Almost...? Yes, indicated that it was Tube Line's decision, not TfL's or LU's, so Alstom does seem like the obvious choice. But if Bombardier come up with a very good offer, they'd still have a chance. In any case, whoever gets the order is presumably then responsible for maintaining the trains. |
Walk-through trains
|
Walk-through trains
On 11 Aug, 17:28, "Recliner" wrote:
"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.- Well, I seem to remember that a slightly shorter train was required when they moved the guard to the back cab, so maybe not a problem any more. But as you say, probably no shortage of 1973 stock anyway. |
Walk-through trains
On Aug 11, 6:06*pm, Bruce wrote:
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. Indeed. *The rot set in when BREL/ABB/Adtranz or whatever they were called at the time got the contract for the 1992 stock for the Central Line, which helped spell the end of Metro-Cammell's operations at Washwood Heath. It didn't open up the market to competition, it jusr eliminated one train builder. You're mad. The next two Tube builds, totalling almost 200 trains, went to Alstom at Washwood Heath. Then it was kept open by the small, pilot post- privatisation builds (Junipers and Coradias) plus screwing together the Italian-built Pendolini. The plant closed partly because Alstom weren't able to win any large post-privatisation commuter train orders (because the Junipers and Coradias were crap), partly because Alstom were French and hence wanted to centralise everything value-added in France and shift everything else to cheap places, partly because the plant wasn't very good at high-quality assembly anyway, and partly because LU didn't procure any new trains from *anyone* for 13 years. Adtranz winning the 1992 stock contract had about as much to do with Washwood Heath's demise as [insert example of highly irrelevant thing here]. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Walk-through trains
In message
, John B writes The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. *Last I heard, there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines. Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill along. Not sure I follow here. Surely, since the costs fall on Tubelines, having them responsible for the choice of supplier makes sense - and as you say, makes them likely to pick Almost...? Agreed but which flies in the face of earlier postings that exhorted a standardised fleet across LU (maybe they should just build some more 59 stock?) -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Walk-through trains
In message , Recliner
writes The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard, there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines. Ah, I was under the impression that this project had been deferred, thanks to the squeeze on TfL's budget. I've heard similar rumours but the official line we're getting is that the money is still there and the project is moving ahead and the above is the current situation. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Walk-through trains
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:44:42 +0100, wrote:
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 trainbuilders 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? LU rolling stock lasts (should last) about 40 years. That means stock should be ordered at about 5-year intervals. Technology moves on. Even if it didn't, priorities would. For example, low energy consumption should be given much higher priority now than it was in the 95/6 stock. Occasionally a 5-year old design may be the best option, but not often. 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. |
Walk-through trains
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:38:34 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald ]
wrote: The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. That's a bit early, isn't it? If the modernisation programme is over budget, deferring this build would be one way to spread the cost. IIRC the 73 stock went into service in 1975, so its replacements shouldn't be needed until 2015. 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. |
Walk-through trains
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote: 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. As some one else mentioned, the 92 stock disprove that theory. 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. Plenty of train types have swapped lines in the past. Now, because of the one type per line approach thats unlikely to be possible in the future without some expensive mods to either the trains, signalling or both. 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. The 09 looked nice in the euston mockup but I'll reserve judgement until I've been on a real one. The 95/96 stock are looking decided grubby these days and the appalling acceleration of the 96 stock on the northern line doesn't exactly give it a cutting edge feel. As for the 92 stock, you have to be kidding. Good acceleration yes, but they're rusting to bits after only 15 years and the motors had a habit of falling off! B2003 |
Walk-through trains
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:32:22 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote: Technology moves on. Even if it didn't, priorities would. For example, low energy consumption should be given much higher priority now than it was in the 95/6 stock. If low energy consumption is a priority now (why it wouldn't have been in 1995 I don't know but anyway..) why are LUL having to upgrade the power supply on the victoria line to cope with the new 09 stock? I wouldn't call using more power that the old trains energy efficient would you? Occasionally a 5-year old design may be the best option, but not often. Even car designs last longer than 5 years and even then most of the changes in the new model are cosmetic. What is so radical in train designs that they must change even more often? B2003 |
Walk-through trains
In message op.uyjjm50pby8eno@sheepdog, Colin McKenzie
writes The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. That's a bit early, isn't it? If the modernisation programme is over budget, deferring this build would be one way to spread the cost. IIRC the 73 stock went into service in 1975, so its replacements shouldn't be needed until 2015. It's (currently!) designated 13 Tube Stock so that's about right. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Walk-through trains
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote: True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a 2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and setting up a production line from scratch, though. If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly line tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much difference between 09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way or the other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to equipment? Its not like a train builder having to squash a UIC loading gauge train by 6 inches width and a foot in height to fit the UKs hopeless mainline loading gauge. B2003 |
Walk-through trains
wrote in message
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:32:22 +0100 "Colin McKenzie" wrote: Technology moves on. Even if it didn't, priorities would. For example, low energy consumption should be given much higher priority now than it was in the 95/6 stock. If low energy consumption is a priority now (why it wouldn't have been in 1995 I don't know but anyway..) why are LUL having to upgrade the power supply on the victoria line to cope with the new 09 stock? I wouldn't call using more power that the old trains energy efficient would you? True, but the new Victoria line trains are longer, faster and more frequent, so that may account for some of the extra power. Occasionally a 5-year old design may be the best option, but not often. Even car designs last longer than 5 years and even then most of the changes in the new model are cosmetic. What is so radical in train designs that they must change even more often? Cars typically have an eight year production life, but the technology is often updated during that time. Right now, most new cars are markedly more fuel efficient than their predecessors, so there really are major technology changes happening. For example, engines themselves are cleaner and more economical, they may shut down when the car is stopped, they may only power the alternator when the car is not accelerating, etc. And there's lots more to come. I don't see why trains shouldn't also get significantly more efficient, more comfortable and more reliable over time (though, of course, sometimes they get worse, like the 1983 stock, which was the last LU-designed train). |
Walk-through trains
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:30 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: True, but the new Victoria line trains are longer, faster and more frequent, so that may account for some of the extra power. I suppose. I don't see why trains shouldn't also get significantly more efficient, more comfortable and more reliable over time (though, of course, I don't know about reliability but there does seem to be a trend of every new electric train in this country using more power than its predecessor. In the case of the 377s significantly more. This is in stark contrast to cars which despite getting heavier year on year are still using less fuel with each generation. Whatever the train builders are concentrating on in their designs, energy efficiency doesn't seem to be it. B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk