On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:48:56 -0000
"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.

Not room for what? Instead of the carraige endwall there is a rubber skirt
(or whatever its called). I don't see the problem.

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:48:56 -0000
"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.

Not room for what? Instead of the carraige endwall there is a rubber
skirt (or whatever its called). I don't see the problem.

As I said, this was discussed in detail some time ago. Perhaps the
engineers involved have a better understanding of 3D geometry than you
do, and can see the problem. In case you still can't understand, look at
the width of the gangway in 378s or S stock, and subtract the difference
in carriage width between them and the 2009 stock to get an idea of how
wide the resulting open gangway would be in Tube stock. If you are a
LURS member, look at the photo on page 5 of the Jan 2012 issue of
Underground News to see what I mean.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:49:14 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
As I said, this was discussed in detail some time ago. Perhaps the

Unfortunately I don't have time to trawl through a years worth of posts.

engineers involved have a better understanding of 3D geometry than you
do, and can see the problem. In case you still can't understand, look at
the width of the gangway in 378s or S stock, and subtract the difference
in carriage width between them and the 2009 stock to get an idea of how
wide the resulting open gangway would be in Tube stock. If you are a

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.

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:49:14 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
As I said, this was discussed in detail some time ago. Perhaps the

Unfortunately I don't have time to trawl through a years worth of
posts.

engineers involved have a better understanding of 3D geometry than
you do, and can see the problem. In case you still can't understand,
look at the width of the gangway in 378s or S stock, and subtract
the difference in carriage width between them and the 2009 stock to
get an idea of how wide the resulting open gangway would be in Tube
stock. If you are a

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?

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

B2003

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.

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)

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.

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

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).
--
Roland Perry