Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-12 21:43:20 +0000, Recliner said:

Not according to the dimensions quoted in Wikipedia: the 92 TS cars are
shown as lighter, narrower, shorter and lower than the 95TS. See
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londo...und_1992_Stock
and
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londo...und_1995_Stock

Maybe lower is the key - are the Central Line platforms lower, allowing
more of the loading gauge to be used?

I don't think a height difference of a mere 5mm would indicate a different
loading gauge. Within normal tolerances and suspension movement, they're
effectively of identical height.

Incidentally, the original 1900 Central London Railway tunnels were smaller
than the later Yerkes tube tunnels, but they may have been enlarged later,
just as the C&SL tunnels were. The Central line also has some very sharp
curves, such as between Shepherd's Bush and White City, so the 92TS would
almost certainly fit the probably larger Northern tunnels.

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2014-10-11 09:45:52 +0000, Recliner said:

The new automated trains will still have an attendant, who may be in
charge of closing the doors.

Will they? Isn't that precisely what the Victoria and Central Lines
have - they just sit up front because it would be very hard for them
to do the doors on a crush loaded train from elsewhere.

I would assume if they want to automate fully, they will automate
fully, doors included, just like say Singapore. If you still have
staff on the train of any kind, you don't save any money.

It all depends on whether you believe Boris (difficult question I know). He
said they will have captains like the DLR.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2014-10-11 09:45:52 +0000, Recliner said:

The new automated trains will still have an attendant, who may be in
charge of closing the doors.

Will they? Isn't that precisely what the Victoria and Central Lines
have - they just sit up front because it would be very hard for them
to do the doors on a crush loaded train from elsewhere.

I would assume if they want to automate fully, they will automate
fully, doors included, just like say Singapore. If you still have
staff on the train of any kind, you don't save any money.

It all depends on whether you believe Boris (difficult question I know). He
said they will have captains like the DLR.

I think he said they'll actually have 'drivers' in the front cab in the
first few years, then roving attendants, presumably after the PEDs are
installed in tunnel stations. But this is all a decade or more after the
end of his mayoralty. By then, he'll be either PM or on the telly.

Paul Corfield wrote:
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/


On the LU issue we are obviously *assuming* that there will be PEDs at
open air stations to deal with the risk of obstructions. Copenhagen
is relevant in that they have opted to change their technology
strategy in the light of experience. They're also relevant in that
they will need to buy and manage equipment capable of dealing with a
wide range of environmental conditions.

Clearly LU could opt to deploy obstruction detection technology but
it's unproven. Network Rail are trying to use it at level crossings
and have had a lot of problems (source - R Ford columns in Modern
Railways). Alternatively it could opt to do nothing and do as the DLR
do. However one has to then ask the question as to why they have
publicly declared that PEDs *are* required for fully automatic
operation. DLR operates into crowded and narrow platforms. It runs
over and under ground. The only main difference is that it doesn't run
at as high speeds as LU trains can and do. Further there are no
obvious suicide spots on DLR whereas there definitely are on LU.

Both the DLR and LU trains have a max speed of 100 km/h. Average speeds
would be higher on LU compared to DLR trains, but that's because the
stations are further apart -- do LU trains enter stations any faster than
DLR trains? In any case, that's entirely manageable in an auto train.

Of course, what the LU does have, and the DLR doesn't, is fast-running,
non-stop trains passing platforms at speed, on the Picc and Met lines.
Maybe those are the only ones that would ally need PEDs?

Unlike deep LU stations, the ungated DLR tracks don't have suicide pits --
I've not seen any reports of suicides under DLR trains, though I assume
there must have been some.

On 12.10.14 23:37, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2014-10-11 09:45:52 +0000, Recliner said:

The new automated trains will still have an attendant, who may be in
charge of closing the doors.

Will they? Isn't that precisely what the Victoria and Central Lines
have - they just sit up front because it would be very hard for them
to do the doors on a crush loaded train from elsewhere.

I would assume if they want to automate fully, they will automate
fully, doors included, just like say Singapore. If you still have
staff on the train of any kind, you don't save any money.

It all depends on whether you believe Boris (difficult question I know). He
said they will have captains like the DLR.

I think he said they'll actually have 'drivers' in the front cab in the
first few years, then roving attendants, presumably after the PEDs are
installed in tunnel stations. But this is all a decade or more after the
end of his mayoralty. By then, he'll be either PM or on the telly.

I thought that the plan was to build the new rolling stock without cabs.

" wrote:
On 12.10.14 23:37, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2014-10-11 09:45:52 +0000, Recliner said:

The new automated trains will still have an attendant, who may be in
charge of closing the doors.

Will they? Isn't that precisely what the Victoria and Central Lines
have - they just sit up front because it would be very hard for them
to do the doors on a crush loaded train from elsewhere.

I would assume if they want to automate fully, they will automate
fully, doors included, just like say Singapore. If you still have
staff on the train of any kind, you don't save any money.

It all depends on whether you believe Boris (difficult question I know). He
said they will have captains like the DLR.

I think he said they'll actually have 'drivers' in the front cab in the
first few years, then roving attendants, presumably after the PEDs are
installed in tunnel stations. But this is all a decade or more after the
end of his mayoralty. By then, he'll be either PM or on the telly.

I thought that the plan was to build the new rolling stock without cabs.

Maybe it'll be like the DLR, with driver's control panels, but not a
separated cab? But I think the mock-up does have a cab, contrary to
Boris's claims.

On 12.10.14 22:30, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-11 14:30:13 +0000, Recliner said:

The ironic thing is that the Northern line needs extra trains in the same
time-scale, but I don't suppose there would be any chance of using
redundant 92TS on that line alongside the slightly newer 95TS. Had those
lines shared a standard design, it would have been feasible.

92 stock would be too big I think. It definitely appears higher and wider.

Neil
Out of curiosity, could any LUL rolling stock operate without drivers
now?

On 13.10.14 1:20, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12.10.14 23:37, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2014-10-11 09:45:52 +0000, Recliner said:

The new automated trains will still have an attendant, who may be in
charge of closing the doors.

Will they? Isn't that precisely what the Victoria and Central Lines
have - they just sit up front because it would be very hard for them
to do the doors on a crush loaded train from elsewhere.

I would assume if they want to automate fully, they will automate
fully, doors included, just like say Singapore. If you still have
staff on the train of any kind, you don't save any money.

It all depends on whether you believe Boris (difficult question I know). He
said they will have captains like the DLR.

I think he said they'll actually have 'drivers' in the front cab in the
first few years, then roving attendants, presumably after the PEDs are
installed in tunnel stations. But this is all a decade or more after the
end of his mayoralty. By then, he'll be either PM or on the telly.

I thought that the plan was to build the new rolling stock without cabs.

Maybe it'll be like the DLR, with driver's control panels, but not a
separated cab? But I think the mock-up does have a cab, contrary to
Boris's claims.

Where is the mock-up anyway, and how long will it be there for?

" wrote:
On 12.10.14 22:30, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-11 14:30:13 +0000, Recliner said:

The ironic thing is that the Northern line needs extra trains in the same
time-scale, but I don't suppose there would be any chance of using
redundant 92TS on that line alongside the slightly newer 95TS. Had those
lines shared a standard design, it would have been feasible.

92 stock would be too big I think. It definitely appears higher and wider.


Out of curiosity, could any LUL rolling stock operate without drivers now?

Technically, no, but it wouldn't be hard to fit remote or automatic
timer-based door closing gear. Everything else is automatic now on several
fleets.

On 2014\10\12 23:04, Recliner wrote:

Incidentally, the original 1900 Central London Railway tunnels were smaller
than the later Yerkes tube tunnels, but they may have been enlarged later,
just as the C&SL tunnels were.

The Central was never enlarged, because the difference was slight,
however all Central Line trains have had non-standard shoe-gear because
the third rail is higher to fit in the smaller tunnels.