Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

In message , d
writes

I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro who's
loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock must be down to
magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a visit.

The profile of the ligne 2 stock in Paris is more like that of the
sub-surface stock in London - a rectangular cross-section that offers
the full available width from floor to ceiling height.

The profile of London tube stock is very different, as the sides curve
sharply inwards towards the top, leaving only enough width for one
person at a time to move between carriages. I think this would severely
limit any walk-through arrangement.

In contrast, the gangway on S-stock is wide enough for two large people
to pass in opposite directions - and it gets wider above knee height.
--
Paul Terry

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

Recliner wrote on 06 January 2012 15:59:16 ...
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.

Some people use "articulated" to mean permanently connected cars with a
wide interconnecting gangway, and others use the word to mean cars that
have a shared bogie. Anyone using the word on this newsgroup should
first define which definition they are using.

On the Paris Métro all the trains from 1989 onwards have interconnecting
gangways but conventional bogies. The only trains with shared bogies
are the experimental MF88 on line 7bis; the bogies proved troublesome
and were not used on later stocks. Incidentally the train referred to
as "MF2000" is now known as MF01.

I believe the overall train width on the Métro (latest trains) is about
2.45m, compared with London's subsurface Tube trains at around 2.9m and
small tube stocks at around 2.6m. That surprises me, as the latest
Paris trains feel much wider than a London deep tube. Maybe it's the
difference in height that gives that impression.

I suspect that the lack of wide gangways on 2009 stock is because
Bombardier/Metronet could meet the terms of the PPP contract without
them, and LU had no leverage under PPP to force any major design
changes. LU are certainly now pursuing more radical design options for
the replacement of 1972/73 stock, e.g. the Siemens offering described at
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...ept-train.html
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

Are they articulated?


They are reticulated.

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

"Richard J." wrote in message


Some people use "articulated" to mean permanently connected cars with
a wide interconnecting gangway, and others use the word to mean cars
that have a shared bogie. Anyone using the word on this newsgroup
should first define which definition they are using.

I was only aware of the shared-bogie definition of articulated trains.
In my view, the other definition is simply a misunderstanding.

On the Paris Métro all the trains from 1989 onwards have
interconnecting gangways but conventional bogies. The only trains
with shared bogies are the experimental MF88 on line 7bis; the bogies
proved troublesome
and were not used on later stocks. Incidentally the train referred to
as "MF2000" is now known as MF01.

The video I found certainly seems to show proper, articulated trains,
with shared bogies.


I suspect that the lack of wide gangways on 2009 stock is because
Bombardier/Metronet could meet the terms of the PPP contract without
them, and LU had no leverage under PPP to force any major design
changes. LU are certainly now pursuing more radical design options
for the replacement of 1972/73 stock, e.g. the Siemens offering
described at
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...ept-train.html

Yes, I agree that the PPP contract led to a timid, conventional design
for the 2009 stock. LU had long been been pursuing the idea of
articulated trains with open gangways for the replacement Victoria line
stock (the 'Space train' --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/108328170/), but the
misconceived PPP contract put the kibosh on it.

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

On 06/01/2012 12:48, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of
any disadvantages.

It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there
isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be
articulated, and would then have open gangways.


I always thought that was the initial plan, and was slightly surprised
when I found out they were not walk through.

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

On 06/01/2012 15:59, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.


They are. indeed. I have been on them.

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:49:28 +0000
" wrote:
On 06/01/2012 15:59, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.


They are. indeed. I have been on them.

Perhaps next time you go you should take a closer look. They are not
articulated, there are no shared bogies.

B2003

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:59:16 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro
who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock
must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers
a visit.

Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the
carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies.

I suggest you see an optician.

B2003

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:57:45 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:48:51 on Fri, 6 Jan
2012, d remarked:
Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Dunno, how could we tell? (Other than the absence of the word in the
text for that page).

Oh I dunno, try looking at the picture?

Just a thought.

B2003

Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock?
 

On 2012-01-07, d wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:57:45 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:48:51 on Fri, 6 Jan
2012, d remarked:
Are they articulated?

Does this look articulated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000

Dunno, how could we tell? (Other than the absence of the word in the
text for that page).

Oh I dunno, try looking at the picture?

Or, better still, this pictu

http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/j...4287_p1200.jpg

Eric

--
ms fnd in a lbry