On 2014-10-10 10:36:20 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

And that stock was accessible as were the platforms? All I am saying
is that a generic design will inevitably be compromised. No one has
said how many seats these trains will have, where the luggage space is
for the airport passengers on the Picc Line etc. Even more boring -
will the seats have any padding in them and will there be some
recognition that not everyone is as thin as a stick insect?

Wasn't the Bakerloo "small dividers rather than armrests" mod done on
that basis? That said a lot of us like the firm division the big
plastic armrests provide. A mix of both types may prove to be the
solution, or wider "priority seats" of some kind.

The concept of the air for the air cooling, not air conditioning,
being drawn from underneath the trains risks all sorts of issues.
Where is most heat created on a tube train? Yep from the motors and
other equipment hung under the train. I'm not saying it is impossible
to sort out but we cannot have a repeat on the tube of what has
happened with the NB4L. This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised - we
simply can't have a repeat with tube trains that will be in service
for up to 50 years.

The air-con issue on the NBfL surprised me, and I am similarly
disappointed by newer London buses returning to having only a few
opening windows rather than the deliberate decision for all of them a
few years ago. I suspect in the long run it too will get an opening
windows modification, as there is clearly not the will to fit proper
aircon. As for the deep Tube, moving air is probably still the best
solution, though obviously S-stock has brought aircon to the much
bigger shallow Tube.

The other major issue which is not really being talked about is level
access to this new stock given the vast differences in stepping
heights and stepping distances at so many stations on the Central,
Picc and Bakerloo. There are quite serious ramifications for the
services Queens Park and north. What service no longer runs given the
differences between tube stock and main line stock given there's no
space to double the length of every platform to have different
profiles. I'm not saying this is beyond resolution but it is going to
involve a lot of work and potentially a lot of disruption.

Does every carriage need to be accessible, or just like Harrington
humps (that's what they're called isn't it?) or the similar raised
areas on the Northern Line, is it just one coach that needs to be
accessible? That is much more achievable. Or, here's an outrider, how
about lowering all the platforms on the DC lines, and buying European
style low-floor stock or tram-style stock to run on them? You could
modify a single platform at Euston to handle it, and redeploy the
existing mainline stock elsewhere as LO expands.

The migration from staffed trains to unmanned automatic operation is
not easy. Installing platform edge doors at every platform on those
lines? That's going to be fun given the age of so many platforms and
I can't see them being able to take the weight of the equipment
without reconstruction. It's also going to be fun if they're
installed at open air stations - how do they work when there is inches
of snow on platforms? Most places that have PEDs at open air
locations are in warm climates that never see snow. You also can't
begin the installation work until you have all old stock, with
different door spacing, has been removed from service.

PEDs are probably not realistic on the shared section of the Bakerloo
unless it becomes Tube only - or NR only - but previous rejigs during
engineering work have suggested that would be seriously unpopular. You
could of course have staffed platforms instead of staffed stations,
though, or have a DLR style guard join the train once it moves to a
non-PED part of the line.

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

In message , at 11:36:20 on
Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised

I think I'm a bit behind the times. What's the problem with them?
--
Roland Perry

On 10/10/2014 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:36:20 on
Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised

I think I'm a bit behind the times. What's the problem with them?

They've gained the nickname 'Roastmaster' during the summer months.

On 2014-10-10 11:23:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:

I think I'm a bit behind the times. What's the problem with them?

The so-called air-conditioning isn't up to the job. (Hello, is that
you, First Great Western? )

I think a modification will be necessary pretty sharpish to solve the
issue if more are to be built. Opening windows would probably be the
easiest solution, though I guess these will add weight they could be
aluminium-framed to reduce this so far as possible.

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

On 10.10.14 12:50, Mizter T wrote:

On 10/10/2014 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:36:20 on
Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised

I think I'm a bit behind the times. What's the problem with them?

They've gained the nickname 'Roastmaster' during the summer months.

Are they not also haemorrhaging revenue again? That seems to be one of
the reasons they did away with the bendies.

On 2014-10-10 13:16:28 +0000, said:

Are they not also haemorrhaging revenue again? That seems to be one of
the reasons they did away with the bendies.

They could be easily enough changed to "on at the front, off at the
middle/back" on non-conductor-operated routes, and the conductors given
responsibility for checking that people touch in if they board at the
back, with the middle being exit only.

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

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:16:28 +0100
" wrote:
On 10.10.14 12:50, Mizter T wrote:

On 10/10/2014 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:36:20 on
Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised

I think I'm a bit behind the times. What's the problem with them?

They've gained the nickname 'Roastmaster' during the summer months.

Are they not also haemorrhaging revenue again? That seems to be one of
the reasons they did away with the bendies.

I think that was used as an excuse. I suspect the real reason was that boris
saw an easy way to make his mark by doing so and because he was having his
ear bent by a small but vocal minority of cyclists who for some reason thought
they were the 4 horsemen of the highway, though getting rid of them hasn't
stopped natural selection weeding out the idiots at junctions via lorries.

--
Spud

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:36:20 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:49:41 GMT, d wrote:

Well if they managed to produce stock that could run on all 3 lines in the
1950s I'm pretty sure they can manage it in the 21st century.

And that stock was accessible as were the platforms? All I am saying
is that a generic design will inevitably be compromised. No one has
said how many seats these trains will have, where the luggage space is
for the airport passengers on the Picc Line etc. Even more boring -
will the seats have any padding in them and will there be some
recognition that not everyone is as thin as a stick insect?

I'm sure the interiors can be line specific just like the S stock, but that
doesn't mean you can't use the same basic train.

services Queens Park and north. What service no longer runs given the
differences between tube stock and main line stock given there's no
space to double the length of every platform to have different
profiles. I'm not saying this is beyond resolution but it is going to
involve a lot of work and potentially a lot of disruption.

I think disability campaigners will simply have to accept that 100%
accessability is not possible.

--
Spud

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:49:41 GMT, d wrote:

Well if they managed to produce stock that could run on all 3 lines in the
1950s I'm pretty sure they can manage it in the 21st century.

And that stock was accessible as were the platforms? All I am saying
is that a generic design will inevitably be compromised. No one has
said how many seats these trains will have, where the luggage space is
for the airport passengers on the Picc Line etc. Even more boring -
will the seats have any padding in them and will there be some
recognition that not everyone is as thin as a stick insect?

The concept of the air for the air cooling, not air conditioning,
being drawn from underneath the trains risks all sorts of issues.
Where is most heat created on a tube train? Yep from the motors and
other equipment hung under the train. I'm not saying it is impossible
to sort out but we cannot have a repeat on the tube of what has
happened with the NB4L. This nonsense of revealing snazzy "designs"
before you know if someone can deliver a working, reliable and
effectively engineered train is so reminiscent of the NB4L that it
worries me. There we have a bus that is fatally compromised - we
simply can't have a repeat with tube trains that will be in service
for up to 50 years.

The other major issue which is not really being talked about is level
access to this new stock given the vast differences in stepping
heights and stepping distances at so many stations on the Central,
Picc and Bakerloo. There are quite serious ramifications for the
services Queens Park and north. What service no longer runs given the
differences between tube stock and main line stock given there's no
space to double the length of every platform to have different
profiles. I'm not saying this is beyond resolution but it is going to
involve a lot of work and potentially a lot of disruption.

The migration from staffed trains to unmanned automatic operation is
not easy. Installing platform edge doors at every platform on those
lines? That's going to be fun given the age of so many platforms and
I can't see them being able to take the weight of the equipment
without reconstruction. It's also going to be fun if they're
installed at open air stations - how do they work when there is inches
of snow on platforms?

I can't speak for anywhere else, but the open air stations in Copenhagen
don't have platform doors

and it's colder than here in the winter

tim

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:07:08 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


I can't speak for anywhere else, but the open air stations in Copenhagen
don't have platform doors

and it's colder than here in the winter

I understood that Copenhagen had taken the decision to install them to
reduce delays from things ending up on the track and the auto
detection system stopping trains unncessarily. I agree that their
climate will provide a challenge to operating platform edge doors in
snowy / cold conditions but then they are more likely to be better
prepared than us to deal with such conditions.

Given that the JLE only has PEDs on the new underground stations, I assumed
the same would be true on other lines?