On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:44:08 +0100, "Andy" wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:24:23 GMT, "Gareth Packer"
wrote:

Not sure how Bombardier would feel about the IPR of
the Central Line trains being "stolen" to inform the design of the
Piccadilly Line trains.

What would you want of the design of the 92TS? The far too powerfull
traction system. DTS. The famous motor bracket!!

I didn't say LU or Bombardier wanted anything from the 92 stock. Mr
Packer made the remark that Picc Line trains would incorporate elements
from 92 and 95/96 stock but you have deleted his text in your response
thus rendering my comments fairly meaningless.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:25:40 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:35:51 GMT, "Gareth Packer"
wrote:

It will install new train
control systems on Metronet lines to improve safety and reduce headways,
although the new system will not be 'moving block'.

I understood the reason why the jubilee line was late to Stratford was
in problems over "Moving Block" signalling. Have they still not got
this item right yet? Couldn't LUL insist on such a system which when
working could be seriously advantageous to all the network? Private
companies were brought in to do the work, if they can't deliver
shouldn't they either be sacked as a common worker would or be penalised
until they came up with the goods? Or are punters just cattle who feed
the big corporations and have to put up with inferior service?

Alcatel are dealing with the Jubilee Line therefore the Metronet /
Westinghouse reference is not relevant. As Colin has mentioned in
another post the moving block proposed for the Jubilee Line had to be
scrapped because there was no chance of Westinghouse delivering it, it
would never have been ready for the planned opening date and safety
approval could never have been achieved either. As always with schemes
of the scale of the Jubilee Line Extension a series of claims have
settled to deal with delivery or non delivery of parts of the original
contract. I do not know how the signalling contract was dealt with.

LUL has specified an output for line upgrades. It is not specifying or
insisting on the technology because if it does and it doesn't work the
Infracos have no incentive to fix it. They would also send LU the bill
for fixing it and also for any abatements under the performance regime.
Under PPP they make the choices between track design, power usage, train
design and functionality / capacity and signalling and control systems.
They have to comply with our standards and make sure the trains can be
used by passengers and staff safely and effectively but otherwise the
performance risk is transferred to them.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:35 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:


I thought they gave up on moving block signalling to meet the 1999
opening date. Are there any plans yet to introduce moving block or any
other automatically driven trains? I thought not.
Yes, the moving block intention was dropped in favour of a more
convential track circuit based system by Westinghouse. For the
upgrades the proposals for Jubilee and Northern are based on Alcatel's
SELTRAC system and for the Victoria (and presumably SubSurface)
Westinghouse "Distance to Go".

See here for articles:
SELTRAC http://www.home.alcatel.com/vpr/arch...Key/02102003uk

and here for Distance to Go
http://www.metronetrail.com/default....=1084193413828

As Paul C says, no contract has yet been signed between Tubelines and
any suppliers for signalling and trains on the Picc line.

P

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:44:08 +0100, "Andy" wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:24:23 GMT, "Gareth Packer"
wrote:

Not sure how Bombardier would feel about the IPR of
the Central Line trains being "stolen" to inform the design of the
Piccadilly Line trains.

What would you want of the design of the 92TS? The far too powerfull
traction system. DTS. The famous motor bracket!!

I didn't say LU or Bombardier wanted anything from the 92 stock. Mr
Packer made the remark that Picc Line trains would incorporate elements
from 92 and 95/96 stock but you have deleted his text in your response
thus rendering my comments fairly meaningless.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Indeed.

I appreciate your comments with regards to the "future of LUL." It
definately helped to clear up the facts anyway.

I must say, with reference to Andy's comment however that I am a fan of the
92, it remains my favourite stock on the network. The acceleration may be
more savaging than other stocks, however acceleration for me is faster in /
faster out and better frequency, which is good in my book.

I too have rode in a "new look" District line train, Im not their biggest
fan it must be said. I far prefer modern technology and new idea's and
designs, although I know that *generally* they are not favoured with the
Drivers.

Thanks again for the remarks.

Gareth

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Clive wrote:

In message , Andy
writes

What would you want of the design of the 92TS? The far too powerfull
traction system.

When acceleration means reduced times between trains, then there's no
such thing as "far too powerful".

Go for a good ride on a train which accelerates and brakes at more than
1.2 m/s^2, then come back and tell us that!

I assume we're not talking about that kind of power, though, in which case
i agree with the sentiment - more acceleration is quicker trips and higher
frequencies, and that's all good.

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!

In message , Tom
Anderson writes
Go for a good ride on a train which accelerates and brakes at more than
1.2 m/s^2, then come back and tell us that!

I assume we're not talking about that kind of power, though, in which
case i agree with the sentiment - more acceleration is quicker trips
and higher frequencies, and that's all good.

tom
After spending several years on both the Northern and the Central lines
working on the trains, I know what a train accelerating and decelerating
feels like, both in normal and emergency means. I don't alter my
opinion that you cannot have to much power "acceleration".
--
Clive

for the Piccadilly Line upgrade. And performance of the current Northern
Line trains is dire so it would be doubly stupid - Tube Lines will want

I thought the northern line trains were pretty reliable. Unless by
performance
you mean acceleration in which case I'd agree , they do feel (as a
passenger)
to be powered by little more than a rubber band. Farcical when compared
to
the acceleration achieved by the older 92 stock on the central.

B2003

What would you want of the design of the 92TS? The far too powerfull
traction system. DTS. The famous motor bracket!!

That was a badly designed bit of support structure , not a badly
designed traction system. In fact , because the 92TS has motors on
every
bogie then in theory (and I think in fact tho I'm not sure) they could
be
less powerful and produce less wear on the running gear than a unit
that has a smaller number of high power motors only in certain cars.
Not to mention better traction because all wheels are motored. I'm sure
Alstom had a good reason for using the old style power car - trailer
car
design (price?) instead of doing the same as the 92 stock, anyone know
what it was?

B2003

On 31 Aug 2005 02:21:07 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

I'm sure
Alstom had a good reason for using the old style power car - trailer
car
design (price?) instead of doing the same as the 92 stock, anyone know
what it was?

PFI contract with risk transferred to suppliers means they will be as
cautious as possible. Therefore stick with what you know, limit the
number of parts that can go wrong and only innovate where you are
completely confident that the technology will deliver cost savings /
performance benefits. Just a guess though.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On 31 Aug 2005 02:21:07 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

I'm sure
Alstom had a good reason for using the old style power car - trailer
car
design (price?) instead of doing the same as the 92 stock, anyone know
what it was?

PFI contract with risk transferred to suppliers means they will be as
cautious as possible. Therefore stick with what you know, limit the
number of parts that can go wrong and only innovate where you are
completely confident that the technology will deliver cost savings /
performance benefits. Just a guess though.

Wouldn't really be innovation given that the 92TS had already done it.
Probably a combination of saving money by re-using and old type of
design plus a dose of Not Invented Here syndrome. Pity really.

B2003