By Northern Line to Battersea
 

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:46:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:58:07 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Not exactly as I understand it. They will all go via Bank instead of some
going via Charing Cross.

That's one way of putting it. The other is that all Charing X trains go to
Battersea, with additional trains running via Bank to Morden. Either way,
there will be more stock, and more trains running.

Are these new trains going to be more of the same design or will they be
completely new? One would hope the latter given the current 95 stock are
a 20 year old design.

Could be either. They'll be required to be externally similar (doors of the
same size, in the same places, same driving controls) but can have more
modern technology underneath. But, given that it won't be a huge order,
Alstom must have a good chance of winning the contest, with an updated

That would be logical. However TfL and logic are only nodding aquaintances.
I refer you to the 2009 stock that they made too big to run on the piccadilly
line so has to be carted in and out of northumberland park by lorry , then
they go and waste the few inches of extra space with extra thick interior
decor.

To be fair, the 2009 stock wasn't specified by TfL, and more's the pity. We
might have got the articulated walk-through trains that TfL had been
talking about, and which might now be the new Picc stock. The 2009 stock
will be Metronet's enduring legacy.


version of the 95 stock. Some of the order will be for the Jubilee line,
which also needs a bigger fleet to support more frequent services.

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

By London Northern Line to Battersea
 

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\12\29 12:14, Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:11:04 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Now that the Circle is a Tea Cup, the Hammersmith and City is no
longer needed. Why not replace it with a Metropolitan service from
Uxbridge to Barking?

Because they wanted the extra services to Hammersmith, but there isn't
enough capacity on the southern side of the Circle for more Circle
line trains. Also, the H&C stations to Barking may not be long enough
for S8 trains.

Indeed they aren't.

Hardly a major problem these days with SDO and walk-through trains, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

By Northern Line to Battersea
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:13:22 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:58:07 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Not exactly as I understand it. They will all go via Bank instead of
some going via Charing Cross.

That's one way of putting it. The other is that all Charing X trains go
to Battersea, with additional trains running via Bank to Morden. Either
way, there will be more stock, and more trains running.

Are these new trains going to be more of the same design or will they be
completely new? One would hope the latter given the current 95 stock are
a 20 year old design.

They are required to be a "modern equivalent design" for both Jubilee
and Northern lines. Given the need to avoid excessively different
maintenance regimes and the continuation of the PFI rolliing stock
contract on the Northern I'd be astonished if Alstom didn't get the
work. They run the Northern Line's depots so how else is another
supplier going to provide trains that they then have to have Alstom
maintain? Lots of scope for IPR and warranty issues in that sort of
setup.

Alstom no longer maintain the Jubilee Line trains as the work was
brought back in house. However similar arguments about minimising
differences in maintenance practices, driver stock familiarity etc
still come in to play.

The bigger issue for any supplier will be DDA compliance with the
stock.

Are the original 95 and 96 stock not compliant with the post 2020 regs?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

By Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 2015\12\29 22:11, Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

According to
http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_ht...ATT ERSEA.pdf
Nine Elms and Battersea will only have "passive provision" for PEDs.

Although, I can't imagine what passive provision for PEDs might be...
sufficiently large power cables leading to the platforms?

By Northern Line to Battersea
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\29 22:11, Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

According to
http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_ht...ATT ERSEA.pdf

Nine Elms and Battersea will only have "passive provision" for PEDs.

Although, I can't imagine what passive provision for PEDs might be...
sufficiently large power cables leading to the platforms?

Straight and level platforms? Strong enough structure to support the PED
frames?

But the real reason for the train doors being the same size and position is
because the new trains will also be used on the Jubilee line, which needs a
larger fleet.

By Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 2015\12\30 04:30, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\29 22:11, Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

According to
http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_ht...ATT ERSEA.pdf

Nine Elms and Battersea will only have "passive provision" for PEDs.

Although, I can't imagine what passive provision for PEDs might be...
sufficiently large power cables leading to the platforms?

Straight and level platforms? Strong enough structure to support the PED
frames?

But the real reason for the train doors being the same size and position is
because the new trains will also be used on the Jubilee line, which needs a
larger fleet.


Although they could just transfer some 95s to the Jubilee Line and put
all of the new trains on the Northern. That actually sounds preferable
from a maintenance point of view, assuming the 95s and 96s are more
similar to each other than either will be to the new trains. Ultimately
you would want only one line of the three (Jubilee, Fitzroy, Stane
Street) to have any new trains, perhaps an entirely new fleet.

By Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:11:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I refer you to the 2009 stock that they made too big to run on the piccadilly
line so has to be carted in and out of northumberland park by lorry , then
they go and waste the few inches of extra space with extra thick interior
decor.

To be fair, the 2009 stock wasn't specified by TfL, and more's the pity. We

Ok, didn't realise that. You still have to ask "why?" though since a lot of
the people working for metronet would have been the same people who would
have designed the train for LU anyway. Guess we'll never know.

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

Is it not possible to have walk through with non articulated tube stock in
the style of S stock and the 378s?

--
Spud

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:06:53 -0400, Clark F. Morris
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:41:17 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:43:26 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:19:39 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:18:24 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Subject: By Londons Northern Line to Battersea

Why are you changing the subject line? It creates a new thread each
time you do that. It makes a mess.

Original subject was "By Northern Line to Battersea".

Because readers in misc.transport.urban-transit may not know that the
"Northern Line" and "Battersea" relate to London, England.

They probably don't care either and if they did they'd probably already
subscribe to utl.

As someone who is following the thread with interest on
misc.transport.urban-transit and who doesn't want to follow another
newsgroup, I appreciate the cross=posting. Residing in Canada, I'm
used to both US and British spellings and really don't care which are
used.

Thank you Clark. You are welcome.

Back when misc.transport.urban-transit was a flourishing group there
was very little posted about London. IMHO this is a pity. London has
the oldest metro network and there are always developments there.

Whilst one is aware that Canadian English is closer in syntax and
spelling to the UK variety than the US. One is also aware that
Canadians are familiar with the US variations.

Personally I like much of Noah Webster's anglicized standard English.
Many of the UK spellings reflect their French origin.

Alright eh? :-)

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:28:25 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:11:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I refer you to the 2009 stock that they made too big to run on the piccadilly
line so has to be carted in and out of northumberland park by lorry , then
they go and waste the few inches of extra space with extra thick interior
decor.

To be fair, the 2009 stock wasn't specified by TfL, and more's the pity. We

Ok, didn't realise that. You still have to ask "why?" though since a lot of
the people working for metronet would have been the same people who would
have designed the train for LU anyway. Guess we'll never know.

Surely it would be possible to buy some new rolling stock and shuffle
the existing fleets in order to render each line homogenous?

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

Is it not possible to have walk through with non-articulated tube stock in
the style of S stock and the 378s?

One would have thought so. The articulated excuse is just that, a
poor excuse.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 04:54:19 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\30 04:30, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\29 22:11, Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

According to
http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_ht...ATT ERSEA.pdf

Nine Elms and Battersea will only have "passive provision" for PEDs.

Although, I can't imagine what passive provision for PEDs might be...
sufficiently large power cables leading to the platforms?

Straight and level platforms? Strong enough structure to support the PED
frames?

But the real reason for the train doors being the same size and position is
because the new trains will also be used on the Jubilee line, which needs a
larger fleet.


Although they could just transfer some 95s to the Jubilee Line and put
all of the new trains on the Northern. That actually sounds preferable
from a maintenance point of view, assuming the 95s and 96s are more
similar to each other than either will be to the new trains.

That makes more sense. There is the issue of non-comapible non etrms
compliant ATO systems. TfL strikes again!