On 15.10.14 14:56, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\10\14 22:44, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:54:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

I was reading an article about Barcelona's new driverless (and mostly
service-less) lines 9 and 10... Some of the stations are very deep,
and can only have lifts, and it's claimed that these (will) have an
interface with the central system in order to control passenger flows
through the station. If actually done this way, I suppose they would
be vertical lifts that run to a timetable.

The lifts at Aldwych station would wait at surface level until the train
was due to arrive, and then descend in time to meet the train, so they
will have effectively run to a timetable.

I wonder if they have/had that on Helgoland, where a lift is part of the
public transport.

On 2014\10\15 14:56, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\10\14 22:44, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:54:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

I was reading an article about Barcelona's new driverless (and mostly
service-less) lines 9 and 10... Some of the stations are very deep,
and can only have lifts, and it's claimed that these (will) have an
interface with the central system in order to control passenger flows
through the station. If actually done this way, I suppose they would
be vertical lifts that run to a timetable.

The lifts at Aldwych station would wait at surface level until the train
was due to arrive, and then descend in time to meet the train, so they
will have effectively run to a timetable.


I've just realised the ridiculousness of running a tube train shuttle
where the passengers using each train can fit in a single lift.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:37:50 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2014-10-13 07:34:52 +0000, Recliner said:

But that may explain why the 92 stock is slightly smaller than the 95 stock
of the same era.

I wonder what makes it feel bigger, then? Perhaps the large windows?

I think that's it. They do feel more spacious somehow.

Richard.

On 15/10/2014 19:39, Richard wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:37:50 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2014-10-13 07:34:52 +0000, Recliner said:

But that may explain why the 92 stock is slightly smaller than the 95
stock of the same era.

I wonder what makes it feel bigger, then? Perhaps the large windows?

I think that's it. They do feel more spacious somehow.

Are the seats not a bit lower too?

On 2014-10-16 19:54:25 +0000, Mizter T said:

Are the seats not a bit lower too?

Also the middle two (by the grab pole) are closer to the window, aren't
they? So perhaps less wasted space?

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

On 17/10/2014 10:25, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2014-10-16 19:54:25 +0000, Mizter T said:

Are the seats not a bit lower too?

Also the middle two (by the grab pole) are closer to the window, aren't
they? So perhaps less wasted space?

Yes, but not in the middle of the car:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/danny0001/8454776972
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12445197@N05/3754427058

My feeling is that the seats are a bit too low, lower than on other
stock. Might be baseless though... I guess I could stuff a tape measure
in my bag!

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:54:25 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 15/10/2014 19:39, Richard wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:37:50 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2014-10-13 07:34:52 +0000, Recliner said:

But that may explain why the 92 stock is slightly smaller than the 95
stock of the same era.

I wonder what makes it feel bigger, then? Perhaps the large windows?

I think that's it. They do feel more spacious somehow.

Are the seats not a bit lower too?

They're wider apart at certain points that in other tube stock. Somehow
BREL managed to built a train without requiring 9 inches of space on either
side. If a bit more money had been spent on the basic construction they'd
have been very good trains.

--
Spud

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2014\10\15 14:56, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\10\14 22:44, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:54:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

I was reading an article about Barcelona's new driverless (and mostly
service-less) lines 9 and 10... Some of the stations are very deep,
and can only have lifts, and it's claimed that these (will) have an
interface with the central system in order to control passenger flows
through the station. If actually done this way, I suppose they would
be vertical lifts that run to a timetable.

The lifts at Aldwych station would wait at surface level until the train
was due to arrive, and then descend in time to meet the train, so they
will have effectively run to a timetable.


I've just realised the ridiculousness of running a tube train shuttle
where the passengers using each train can fit in a single lift.

It's not the total number of pax that can fit into a single lift, just the
total number using that station (per service frequency)

tim

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 05:28:47 -0500, Recliner
wrote:

"tim....." wrote:
Copenhagen doesn't have platform doors on its open stations

so why would anybody need them?

I agree with you, but the theory seems to be that driverless trains would
be unsafe with open platforms. I don't know why this belief has emerged,
given that the driverless DLR has no PEDs, whether in tunnel or in the
open.

Whereas here is the reality of life.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/0...safety-system/

Putting on my hat of professional "engineer", I can only say

"what a stupid way to solve the problem"

Given that the automotive industry think that they can provide collision
detection for cars
a) that work with a vehicle that might deviate without notice by up to (say)
90 degrees in either direction and
b) at a cost that does not materially impact on the overall price of a 20K
item

I find it impossible to believe that a satisfactory system cannot be cost
effectively developed for a vehicle that
a) can only go straight ahead on its dedicated tracks
b) costs over a million quid to buy.

It's not like the spec is hard, is it?

you only have to detect

a) items that might derail the vehicle
b) items that you don't want to kill

what nonsense!

tim

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:11:11 +0100
"tim....." wrote:
you only have to detect

a) items that might derail the vehicle
b) items that you don't want to kill

what nonsense!

Its suspect its not an engineering issue, its probably health and safety
******* insisting that it must detect EVERYTHING and IMMEDIATELY stop the
train even if its a ****ing snowflake. You know, just in case its a really
really small child. Or however these idiots think.

--
Spud