wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cheeky wrote:

Are the new trains for LUL going to have corridor connections and if
not, why not?

Sub-surface lines: yes. Deep-level tubes: no.

Sorry...do you mean sub-surface are paying for extra cars but tube
aren't?

Or articulation is only viable on deep tubes? (if so why?).

Cheeky asked about corridor connections, by which I assume he meant
passenger-accessible corridors between cars. The answer is that that
the new sub-surface trains will have, in Metronet's words
"interconnecting gangways, allowing passengers to walk through the
entire train". But the mock-ups of the new Victoria Line trains show
conventional inter-car doors as at present.

I don't understand your point about extra sub-surface cars.

Articulation, by which I assume you mean sharing one bogie between two
cars, is a different issue altogether. The Paris Métro has wide
inter-car connections on its latest stock, but the cars are not
articulated in that sense.

Finally, you're very welcome to join this conversation, but please quote
the previous text (which I've reconstructed above), otherwise it gets
very difficult to work out which sub-thread you've attached yourself to.
In Google Groups, you do that by clicking on "show options", then on the
"Reply" immediately after the Subject line, not the "Reply" at the end
of the message.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

I thought non-emergency inter-car connection wouldn't work on
sub-surface without articulation because of some of the tight curves
and consequential outswing at car ends. This is very pronounced on the
D Stock but obviously would be less so on the new SSL 'S Stock' cars
which will be shorter. Not so much a problem on the Victoria Line which
was built to more modern standards I would have thought.

If pasengers can walk through an entire train as Metronet suggest, and
not just within a unit, this implies block-formed trains, or at least
no double-ended units (i.e. occasional middle cabs). As soon as you
lose the flexibility to swop units and split trains easily, you will
need more trains overall to ensure that one defective car doesn't
'stop' an entire 6, 7 or 8-car train.

Richard J. wrote:
wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cheeky wrote:

Are the new trains for LUL going to have corridor connections and if
not, why not?

Sub-surface lines: yes. Deep-level tubes: no.

Sorry...do you mean sub-surface are paying for extra cars but tube
aren't?

Or articulation is only viable on deep tubes? (if so why?).

Cheeky asked about corridor connections, by which I assume he meant
passenger-accessible corridors between cars. The answer is that that
the new sub-surface trains will have, in Metronet's words
"interconnecting gangways, allowing passengers to walk through the
entire train". But the mock-ups of the new Victoria Line trains show
conventional inter-car doors as at present.

I don't understand your point about extra sub-surface cars.

Articulation, by which I assume you mean sharing one bogie between two
cars, is a different issue altogether. The Paris Métro has wide
inter-car connections on its latest stock, but the cars are not
articulated in that sense.

Finally, you're very welcome to join this conversation, but please quote
the previous text (which I've reconstructed above), otherwise it gets
very difficult to work out which sub-thread you've attached yourself to.
In Google Groups, you do that by clicking on "show options", then on the
"Reply" immediately after the Subject line, not the "Reply" at the end
of the message.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

wrote:
I thought non-emergency inter-car connection wouldn't work on
sub-surface without articulation because of some of the tight curves
and consequential outswing at car ends.

It works in Paris on the very sharp curves at Bastille on Line 1 without
articulation.
e.g. http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15538

This is very pronounced on the D Stock but obviously would be
less so on the new SSL 'S Stock' cars which will be shorter.
Not so much a problem on the Victoria Line which was built to
more modern standards I would have thought.

True, but I guess they'll want to use the same design for the Bakerloo.

If pasengers can walk through an entire train as Metronet suggest,
and not just within a unit, this implies block-formed trains, or at
least no double-ended units (i.e. occasional middle cabs). As soon
as you lose the flexibility to swop units and split trains easily,
you will need more trains overall to ensure that one defective car
doesn't 'stop' an entire 6, 7 or 8-car train.

Perhaps, but there are many other factors affecting availability and
cost. Not splitting trains would probably give a small reliability
bonus, for example.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:53:48 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:



Cheeky asked about corridor connections, by which I assume he meant
passenger-accessible corridors between cars. The answer is that that
the new sub-surface trains will have, in Metronet's words
"interconnecting gangways, allowing passengers to walk through the
entire train". But the mock-ups of the new Victoria Line trains show
conventional inter-car doors as at present.

That's exactly what I was getting at

presumably the different geometry of the deep-tube units makes this
more difficult to achieve...