On 2014-10-10 10:36:20 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

And that stock was accessible as were the platforms? All I am saying
is that a generic design will inevitably be compromised. No one has
said how many seats these trains will have, where the luggage space is
for the airport passengers on the Picc Line etc. Even more boring -
will the seats have any padding in them and will there be some
recognition that not everyone is as thin as a stick insect?

Wasn't the Bakerloo "small dividers rather than armrests" mod done on
that basis? That said a lot of us like the firm division the big
plastic armrests provide. A mix of both types may prove to be the
solution, or wider "priority seats" of some kind.

The concept of the air for the air cooling, not air conditioning,
being drawn from underneath the trains risks all sorts of issues.
Where is most heat created on a tube train? Yep from the motors and
other equipment hung under the train. I'm not saying it is impossible
to sort out but we cannot have a repeat on the tube of what has
happened with the NB4L. This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised - we
simply can't have a repeat with tube trains that will be in service
for up to 50 years.

The air-con issue on the NBfL surprised me, and I am similarly
disappointed by newer London buses returning to having only a few
opening windows rather than the deliberate decision for all of them a
few years ago. I suspect in the long run it too will get an opening
windows modification, as there is clearly not the will to fit proper
aircon. As for the deep Tube, moving air is probably still the best
solution, though obviously S-stock has brought aircon to the much
bigger shallow Tube.

The other major issue which is not really being talked about is level
access to this new stock given the vast differences in stepping
heights and stepping distances at so many stations on the Central,
Picc and Bakerloo. There are quite serious ramifications for the
services Queens Park and north. What service no longer runs given the
differences between tube stock and main line stock given there's no
space to double the length of every platform to have different
profiles. I'm not saying this is beyond resolution but it is going to
involve a lot of work and potentially a lot of disruption.

Does every carriage need to be accessible, or just like Harrington
humps (that's what they're called isn't it?) or the similar raised
areas on the Northern Line, is it just one coach that needs to be
accessible? That is much more achievable. Or, here's an outrider, how
about lowering all the platforms on the DC lines, and buying European
style low-floor stock or tram-style stock to run on them? You could
modify a single platform at Euston to handle it, and redeploy the
existing mainline stock elsewhere as LO expands.

The migration from staffed trains to unmanned automatic operation is
not easy. Installing platform edge doors at every platform on those
lines? That's going to be fun given the age of so many platforms and
I can't see them being able to take the weight of the equipment
without reconstruction. It's also going to be fun if they're
installed at open air stations - how do they work when there is inches
of snow on platforms? Most places that have PEDs at open air
locations are in warm climates that never see snow. You also can't
begin the installation work until you have all old stock, with
different door spacing, has been removed from service.

PEDs are probably not realistic on the shared section of the Bakerloo
unless it becomes Tube only - or NR only - but previous rejigs during
engineering work have suggested that would be seriously unpopular. You
could of course have staffed platforms instead of staffed stations,
though, or have a DLR style guard join the train once it moves to a
non-PED part of the line.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.