New DLR Trains
 

It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...e%20Launch.JPG
http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...%20Car%201.JPG
http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...%20Car%202.JPG

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

New DLR Trains
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...e%20Launch.JPG

The guy on the right, has he been photoshopped in, has he got an
oddly-proportioned head or am I hallucinating?

New DLR Trains
 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:11:38 +0000, Dave Newt
wrote:



Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...e%20Launch.JPG

The guy on the right, has he been photoshopped in, has he got an
oddly-proportioned head or am I hallucinating?

Ian Brown - don't know. I thought Ken looked like a cardboard cut out.
The angle of the photo is very odd indeed - I suspect the photographer
was pinned against the platform end barriers!

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

New DLR Trains
 

They hold banner with text "50% more capacity", but the picture shows
100% increase :-|

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 14, 10:22 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Rail%20C...

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!

Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 15, 1:13 am, alex_t wrote:
They hold banner with text "50% more capacity", but the picture shows
100% increase :-|

You're right - someone didn't think it through. Or perhaps it is
deliberately misleading.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 14, 10:22 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Rail%20C...

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!

They are nice pictures, especially the one with Canary Wharf in the
background. They suffer from what I call Tales-of-the Unexpected
light, a grim sunshine that makes everything grey, like in the TV
series. If there had been some strong sunshine that would have been a
great photo, even with the portakabins.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 14, 11:11 pm, Dave Newt wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Vehicle%...

The guy on the right, has he been photoshopped in, has he got an
oddly-proportioned head or am I hallucinating?

I have measured it and it seems to be 50% larger than a normal head.

New DLR Trains
 

Offramp wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:11 pm, Dave Newt wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Vehicle%...

The guy on the right, has he been photoshopped in, has he got an
oddly-proportioned head or am I hallucinating?

I have measured it and it seems to be 50% larger than a normal head.

That's because Ian Brown is nearest to the camera! It's a wide-angle shot
taken close to the train and the people, so you get that sort of distortion.

Re your comment in another post about 10 megapixel images: They do have
their uses. For example, in this case you can see from the shape of the dot
over the 'i' in 'capacity' that it's in New Johnston Book at a large size,
contrary to the TfL design rules. (The dot is about 20 x 20 pixels, at
which size it's possible to see that it has concave sides to the diamond, a
feature of New Johnston Book that is not supposed to be readily visible. The
rules say that NJ Book should not be used at larger sizes than 12-point.
New Johnston Light should be used instead.)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

New DLR Trains
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...e%20Launch.JPG
http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...%20Car%201.JPG
http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...%20Car%202.JPG

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!

Ken looks cheerful.... has the cork come out of his working lunch?

New DLR Trains
 

On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Rail%20C...

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!


Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 15, 9:34 am, "Richard J." wrote:
Offramp wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:11 pm, Dave Newt wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Vehicle%...

The guy on the right, has he been photoshopped in, has he got an
oddly-proportioned head or am I hallucinating?

I have measured it and it seems to be 50% larger than a normal head.

That's because Ian Brown is nearest to the camera! It's a wide-angle shot
taken close to the train and the people, so you get that sort of distortion.

Re your comment in another post about 10 megapixel images: They do have
their uses. For example, in this case you can see from the shape of the dot
over the 'i' in 'capacity' that it's in New Johnston Book at a large size,
contrary to the TfL design rules. (The dot is about 20 x 20 pixels, at
which size it's possible to see that it has concave sides to the diamond, a
feature of New Johnston Book that is not supposed to be readily visible. The
rules say that NJ Book should not be used at larger sizes than 12-point.
New Johnston Light should be used instead.)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Great stuff. I'm a font fan so it makes a lot of sense.

New DLR Trains
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Rail%20C...

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!


Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

Mr Thant has a smallish shot of the interior on his London Connections
blog. I have no idea how he keeps it so up to date!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

New DLR Trains
 

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here



Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News...40308_DLR.html

Second picture seems what you need...

Paul S

New DLR Trains
 

On 15 Mar, 17:49, Paul Corfield wrote:
Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? *I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

I'm reasonably sure it's exactly the same as the existing trains, or
at least seems that way.

Mr Thant has a smallish shot of the interior on his London Connections
blog. *I have no idea how he keeps it so up to date!

Relentless nagging from commenters seems to do the trick.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

New DLR Trains
 

Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

I don't think this is true: I had 5 megapixel camera until last year,
and now have 10 megapixel one - and it adds significant amount of
detail. Of course now I have to resize my photos when I e-mail them
(to make them fit into some people's mailboxes), but even when I
resize them to be of 5MP size, they are still much clearer and more
detailed than comparable 5MP photos.

New DLR Trains
 

I'm a bit concerned about the visibility of the destination indicator
- since the front of the train is now more reflective and placed under
larger angle, it may make it much more reflective then before.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 15, 8:30 pm, alex_t wrote:
Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

I don't think this is true: I had 5 megapixel camera until last year,
and now have 10 megapixel one - and it adds significant amount of
detail. Of course now I have to resize my photos when I e-mail them
(to make them fit into some people's mailboxes), but even when I
resize them to be of 5MP size, they are still much clearer and more
detailed than comparable 5MP photos.

Yes. Agreed. Agreed when resizing takes place.

New DLR Trains
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Offramp wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:30 pm, alex_t wrote:

Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

I don't think this is true: I had 5 megapixel camera until last year,
and now have 10 megapixel one - and it adds significant amount of
detail. Of course now I have to resize my photos when I e-mail them (to
make them fit into some people's mailboxes), but even when I resize
them to be of 5MP size, they are still much clearer and more detailed
than comparable 5MP photos.

Yes. Agreed. Agreed when resizing takes place.

Well hang on, what? So a 10 MPx camera not only captures more information
than a 5 MPx one, but in fact so much more that when you reduce the images
to 5 MPx they still look better? This is a rum proposition, most rum. How
could this possibly be the case?

The problem with this argument is that you can't just compare two cameras
and say "well, this is 10 MPx and it looks better than this 5 MPx one",
because they also have completely different optics, and sensors with
different properties and quality, as well as just differing in number of
pixels, plus different postprocessing. I suppose you could compre two DSLR
bodies with identical lenses but different chips, and just ignore
differences in the chips other than pixel count. But, as far as i can
tell, that's not what we're doing!

You can look at this mathematically, as i'm sure you're all aware. The
resolution of a camera, based on Airy discs and all that, is given by 1.22
* l * F, where l is the wavelength of the light (let's say it's 500 nm,
blue-green) and F is the F-number. My camera apparently has a minimum
F-number of F/3.3 (bit rubbish, but there you go), which makes for a
resolution of 2.013 microns at the detector. The chip is apparently 6.16
mm wide and 4.62 mm tall, and is divided into 3072 pixels across and 2304
vertically, for a pixel size of bang on 2 microns. Wahey, perfectly
matched! Now, if i shoot at higher F-numbers (or longer wavelengths), then
the optical resolution falls below that of the chip, and i'm oversampling
and wasting bits. But it's not true to say that i'd be just as well off
with a 5 MPx camera under all conditions.

Now, having said that, my camera is 7 MPx, and has a really pretty good
lens. I could well believe that some 10 MPx micro-compact with a diddy
little lens would fall on the wrong side of the resolution matchup.

But then, oversampling is not completely pointless. It is possible to take
an oversampled image and recover more resolution by applying deconvolution
to it. Digital cameras do a lot of postprocessing, so maybe this is
something they do. Although really good quality deconvolution is pretty
computionally expensive, so i suspect not. Or maybe they just do a
poor-quality version.

tom

--
A plug on its back, straining to suck voltage from the sky

New DLR Trains
 

On 15 Mar, 23:36, Tom Anderson wrote:
Well hang on, what? So a 10 MPx camera not only captures more information
than a 5 MPx one, but in fact so much more that when you reduce the images
to 5 MPx they still look better? This is a rum proposition, most rum. How
could this possibly be the case?

Google "Bayer filter", for one thing. You're also assuming CCDs are
perfect devices, without noise between adjacent pixels, which
absolutely is not the case.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

New DLR Trains
 

Richard J. wrote:

Re your comment in another post about 10 megapixel images: They do
have their uses. For example, in this case you can see from the shape
of the dot over the 'i' in 'capacity' that it's in New Johnston Book
at a large size, contrary to the TfL design rules. (The dot is about
20 x 20 pixels, at which size it's possible to see that it has
concave sides to the diamond, a feature of New Johnston Book that is
not supposed to be readily visible. The rules say that NJ Book should
not be used at larger sizes than 12-point. New Johnston Light should
be used instead.)

But that's for signs. This is not a sign, it's part of a small photo, and
was not supposed to be looked at IRL. Use of New Johnston Book was IMO
correct.

New DLR Trains
 

On 15 Mar, 20:02, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...

On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? *I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News...40308_DLR.html

Second picture seems what you need...

Aha yes, that's good.

Why can't the good sense and awareness of the shape of the human body,
subdivision of personal space etc, that has been applied to the more
recent DLR layouts and the SWT 455 refurbishment, be applied to the
Jubilee line, the 376s and (probably) the 378s?

New DLR Trains
 

John Rowland wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

Re your comment in another post about 10 megapixel images: They do
have their uses. For example, in this case you can see from the shape
of the dot over the 'i' in 'capacity' that it's in New Johnston Book
at a large size, contrary to the TfL design rules. (The dot is about
20 x 20 pixels, at which size it's possible to see that it has
concave sides to the diamond, a feature of New Johnston Book that is
not supposed to be readily visible. The rules say that NJ Book should
not be used at larger sizes than 12-point. New Johnston Light should
be used instead.)

But that's for signs. This is not a sign, it's part of a small photo,
and was not supposed to be looked at IRL. Use of New Johnston Book
was IMO correct.

What's "in real life" for a photo? Arguably it's displayed at full
resolution (10Mpixels, not "small") on a computer screen, and the curved
sides of the diamond are then clearly visible. Even reduced to fit my
laptop screen, the word 'capacity' appears at about 16-point, whereas NJ
Book is restricted throughout TfL to 12-point and below. This is because it
has features like the curved diamond that are slight distortions of the
original design to make it easier to read body text in documents.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

New DLR Trains
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 15 Mar, 23:36, Tom Anderson wrote:

Well hang on, what? So a 10 MPx camera not only captures more
information than a 5 MPx one, but in fact so much more that when you
reduce the images to 5 MPx they still look better? This is a rum
proposition, most rum. How could this possibly be the case?

Google "Bayer filter", for one thing.

There is that. I knew about Bayer filters, but i'd sort of assumed that a
5 MPx camera had 20 million monochrome sensors with the filter over the
top, producing 5 million colour pixels. Which is not the case.

You're also assuming CCDs are perfect devices, without noise between
adjacent pixels, which absolutely is not the case.

I assume you mean that by downsampling, you average neighbouring pixels,
and so reduce the amount of noise. That would be true if it weren't for
the fact that CCD signal to noise ratio scales proportionally to the size
of the pixel (or its square root?); smaller pixels will suffer more noise
in the first place.

tom

--
All London roads are part of MY London Cycle Network. I'd like to see
some of them removed from the London Motor Network! -- Ben Jefferys

New DLR Trains
 

On 16 Mar, 13:37, Tom Anderson wrote:
I assume you mean that by downsampling, you average neighbouring pixels,
and so reduce the amount of noise.

The idea is that by downsampling you're no longer seeing the raw
noise, and the end result is more pleasing, even if technically the
image is numerically no less noisy.

That would be true if it weren't for
the fact that CCD signal to noise ratio scales proportionally to the size
of the pixel (or its square root?); smaller pixels will suffer more noise
in the first place.

I doubt there's such a simple mathematical formula in terms of
production sensors, because there are other factors beside pixel size
that influence noise levels (pre-amp and signal path design,
especially). It really depends whether this a theoretical or a
practical discussion.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 15, 5:05 pm, MIG wrote:
Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

Lets hope the ride quality has improved and passengers at the front
wont be thrown from side to side as soon as the thing hits 30mph like
the current ones do with their death wobble.

B2003

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 17, 5:14*pm, Boltar wrote:
On Mar 15, 5:05 pm, MIG wrote:

Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? *I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

Lets hope the ride quality has improved and passengers at the front
wont be thrown from side to side as soon as the thing hits 30mph like
the current ones do with their death wobble.

I think it was reported that they won't work in multiple, so there's
no risk of a wobbly and non-wobbly unit fighting it out in the same
train.

Maybe the new ones will be introduced before lengthening to allow for
the old ones to be taken out and fixed before one of them falls off
(as seems more and more likely every time I travel on them).

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 17, 11:09 pm, MIG wrote:
I think it was reported that they won't work in multiple, so there's
no risk of a wobbly and non-wobbly unit fighting it out in the same
train.

I guess you mean they won't work in multiple with the old units , not
each other. Otherwise a rather expensive white elephant! :)


Maybe the new ones will be introduced before lengthening to allow for
the old ones to be taken out and fixed before one of them falls off
(as seems more and more likely every time I travel on them).

I have the feeling that its a design flaw otherwise I'm sure they'd
have fixed it by now. I've never been on any other train or tram that
does anything similar and I don't remember the first generation of DLR
trains doing it either.

B2003

New DLR Trains
 

On 17 Mar, 17:14, Boltar wrote:
On Mar 15, 5:05 pm, MIG wrote:

Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? �I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

Lets hope the ride quality has improved and passengers at the front
wont be thrown from side to side as soon as the thing hits 30mph like
the current ones do with their death wobble.

B2003

Do they really do that? I feel travel sick on just about anything that
moves including the lifts at Hampstead tube station but I've never had
a problem on the DLR. But I'll be keeping away from the front from now
on and yes I hope the new DLR trains and also the new Victoria Line
trains are smoother than the current ones

The new DLR trains look great, I don't know why I get excited over
trains but it's like I can't wait to try them out

New DLR Trains
 

On 18 Mar, 16:48, Sophie wrote:
On 17 Mar, 17:14, Boltar wrote:

On Mar 15, 5:05 pm, MIG wrote:

Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? �I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

Lets hope the ride quality has improved and passengers at the front
wont be thrown from side to side as soon as the thing hits 30mph like
the current ones do with their death wobble.

B2003

Do they really do that? I feel travel sick on just about anything that
moves including the lifts at Hampstead tube station but I've never had
a problem on the DLR. But I'll be keeping away from the front from now
on and yes I hope the new DLR trains and also the new Victoria Line
trains are smoother than the current ones

The new DLR trains look great, I don't know why I get excited over
trains but it's like I can't wait to try them out

Travel north between Mudchute and Crossharbour, sitting at the front,
and you'll experience the full horror. It can't be due to speed,
which is not high at that point.