Given T5 was only opened relatively recently I'm wondering what genius
decided that NOT making the train floor and platform heights the same was
a good idea? The platform isn't curved AFAIR so I don't understand why they
didn't do it.

--
Spud

wrote:
Given T5 was only opened relatively recently I'm wondering what genius
decided that NOT making the train floor and platform heights the same was
a good idea? The platform isn't curved AFAIR so I don't understand why they
didn't do it.

I'm guessing it must lack the platform hump that allows the T4 platform to
claim to be accessible. But, like you, I was surprised that even modern
Tube platforms don't have level access for the full platform length.

I was there yesterday and couldn't help but notice the contrast with the
excellent alignment of the train floors and platforms on the HEx and HCon
trains and platforms. There's no difference in floor level and almost no
gap. Obviously it helps that the platforms are straight, as are the
Heathrow Tube platforms.

I wonder if the grand plan with the Picc platforms is to introduce lower
floor trains (NTfL) that will provide a long term solution, rather than
temporarily raising some platforms? Short humps provide a temporary
solution in the meantime. This has been the method adopted with the SSR,
where the lower-floored S stock solves the problem, though as you keep
pointing out, it also means you get gaps with curved platforms, such as at
Finchley Road (where a lot of people dash across the platform to catch a
connecting train).

On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:53:00 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I wonder if the grand plan with the Picc platforms is to introduce lower
floor trains (NTfL) that will provide a long term solution, rather than
temporarily raising some platforms? Short humps provide a temporary

Could be - though when T5 was built would they have been thinking that far
ahead? I never really understood why the tube - and NR to be fair - had an
issue with making straight platforms the same height as the train floor. It
seems to me a no brainer that would cost nothing and there wouldn't be any
gauging issues as the platform lip would have to be further back than normal
anyway.

solution in the meantime. This has been the method adopted with the SSR,
where the lower-floored S stock solves the problem, though as you keep
pointing out, it also means you get gaps with curved platforms, such as at
Finchley Road (where a lot of people dash across the platform to catch a
connecting train).

Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're going to
cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even now getting the
stuff in under the floor.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:53:00 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I wonder if the grand plan with the Picc platforms is to introduce lower
floor trains (NTfL) that will provide a long term solution, rather than
temporarily raising some platforms? Short humps provide a temporary

Could be - though when T5 was built would they have been thinking that far
ahead? I never really understood why the tube - and NR to be fair - had an
issue with making straight platforms the same height as the train floor. It
seems to me a no brainer that would cost nothing and there wouldn't be any
gauging issues as the platform lip would have to be further back than normal
anyway.

What's now called the NTfL has been under consideration for many years,
well before T5 was built.


solution in the meantime. This has been the method adopted with the SSR,
where the lower-floored S stock solves the problem, though as you keep
pointing out, it also means you get gaps with curved platforms, such as at
Finchley Road (where a lot of people dash across the platform to catch a
connecting train).

Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're going to
cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even now getting the
stuff in under the floor.

Mainly through having fewer bogies with the articulated trains. The
carriages will have uninterrupted space between the ends.

See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:53:00 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I wonder if the grand plan with the Picc platforms is to introduce lower
floor trains (NTfL) that will provide a long term solution, rather than
temporarily raising some platforms? Short humps provide a temporary

Could be - though when T5 was built would they have been thinking that far
ahead? I never really understood why the tube - and NR to be fair - had an
issue with making straight platforms the same height as the train floor.
It seems to me a no brainer that would cost nothing and there wouldn't be
any gauging issues as the platform lip would have to be further back than
normal anyway.

solution in the meantime. This has been the method adopted with the SSR,
where the lower-floored S stock solves the problem, though as you keep
pointing out, it also means you get gaps with curved platforms, such as
at Finchley Road (where a lot of people dash across the platform to catch
a connecting train).

Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're going to
cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even now getting
the stuff in under the floor.

In fact a surprising amount of tube stock equipment comes through the floor
(tops of wheels) or is placed under seats.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're going to
cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even now getting the
stuff in under the floor.

Mainly through having fewer bogies with the articulated trains. The
carriages will have uninterrupted space between the ends.

See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf

Looking at that document it seems more a case of using articulation to allow
walk through carraiges. Certainly in the drawing of the train the floor doesn't
look any lower than current stock to me.

--
Spud

On Thu, 05 May 2016 04:51:17 -0500,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:53:00 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I wonder if the grand plan with the Picc platforms is to introduce lower
floor trains (NTfL) that will provide a long term solution, rather than
temporarily raising some platforms? Short humps provide a temporary

Could be - though when T5 was built would they have been thinking that far
ahead? I never really understood why the tube - and NR to be fair - had an
issue with making straight platforms the same height as the train floor.
It seems to me a no brainer that would cost nothing and there wouldn't be
any gauging issues as the platform lip would have to be further back than
normal anyway.

solution in the meantime. This has been the method adopted with the SSR,
where the lower-floored S stock solves the problem, though as you keep
pointing out, it also means you get gaps with curved platforms, such as
at Finchley Road (where a lot of people dash across the platform to catch
a connecting train).

Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're going to
cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even now getting
the stuff in under the floor.

In fact a surprising amount of tube stock equipment comes through the floor
(tops of wheels) or is placed under seats.

Yes, and I'm sure that will continue, though with articulation, the
wheels will be at the car ends, where there may or may not be any
seats. I don't know if solid state electronics reduce the size of some
of the equipment.

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:59:00 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're going to
cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even now getting the
stuff in under the floor.

Mainly through having fewer bogies with the articulated trains. The
carriages will have uninterrupted space between the ends.

See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf

Looking at that document it seems more a case of using articulation to allow
walk through carraiges. Certainly in the drawing of the train the floor doesn't
look any lower than current stock to me.

It's hard to tell. In any case, those are only schematic drawings, but
Siemens explicitly stated that they would deliver a lower floor for
the EVO concept which led to the NTfL. I'm not sure if this is now
required of all the bidders.

http://everything.explained.today/New_Tube_for_London/

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:59:00 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're
going to cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even
now getting the stuff in under the floor.

Mainly through having fewer bogies with the articulated trains. The
carriages will have uninterrupted space between the ends.

See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf

Looking at that document it seems more a case of using articulation to
allow walk through carraiges. Certainly in the drawing of the train the
floor doesn't look any lower than current stock to me.

It's hard to tell. In any case, those are only schematic drawings, but
Siemens explicitly stated that they would deliver a lower floor for
the EVO concept which led to the NTfL. I'm not sure if this is now
required of all the bidders.

http://everything.explained.today/New_Tube_for_London/

"The Invitation to Tender for the trains is expected in early 2015" . Hmm.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 05 May 2016 05:49:22 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:59:00 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Indeed. However I do wonder with low floor tube stock how they're
going to cram in the equipment. Apparently its a bit of a squeeze even
now getting the stuff in under the floor.

Mainly through having fewer bogies with the articulated trains. The
carriages will have uninterrupted space between the ends.

See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf

Looking at that document it seems more a case of using articulation to
allow walk through carraiges. Certainly in the drawing of the train the
floor doesn't look any lower than current stock to me.

It's hard to tell. In any case, those are only schematic drawings, but
Siemens explicitly stated that they would deliver a lower floor for
the EVO concept which led to the NTfL. I'm not sure if this is now
required of all the bidders.

http://everything.explained.today/New_Tube_for_London/

"The Invitation to Tender for the trains is expected in early 2015" . Hmm.

Yup, already running about a year late:
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...ube-for-london