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

B2003

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.

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

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

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.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

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).

Yes, definitely -- see this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaw...el#rel-page-15

Look at how it goes round the curve at about 0:25.