On Apr 10, 7:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Is there an external driver for that requirement

No, the driver can be on board.

The DfT needs to get everyone on board for this project to be a success.

....and in less than 45 seconds, too!

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Apr 10, 8:44*am, John B wrote:


if there are reasons 26 metre cars can't be used;



I would suggest there would be door access issues with stock longer
than 20 m.

On 20 m cars like 317/319/321 and 450/377/375 and 376 et al door
spacing is approx 1/3 and 2/3 car. A 26 m car would be more like 1/4
and 3/4 door spacing - which would lead to longer dwell times - any
more to place doors further towards the middle of a 26 m car would
have to larger a throwover at curved platforms - of which there are
too many stations to resolve.

If you take a look a 444s at Waterloo where the country end of a 10car
is on the curve its easy to see how much a 23 m car throws over. 444s
have end-ish doors so its no big deal - but imagine even 1/3 + 2/3
spacing on one of those cars leads to a big gap.

I'd have thought going the other way - to *shorter* but articlulated
cars might be better.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:50 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

I suspect the 'public' shortening of the routes north of the Thames
can only be a matter of time

And somehting I think is for the better - the core TL route through
central London is too valuable a part of underground / overground /
tube / metro / whatever-you-wish-to-call-it to be anything else than a
high capacity all trains stopp all stations section.


I think they are still mistaken in having two versions of interior layout -
but at least they aren't likely to go ridiculous distances now...

Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for
full ATO for the core route? Is that a first for main line commuter stock -
I guess they will do something similar with Crossrail...

They also seem seriously into reversionary modes to prevent obstruction of
the line:

~ The ability to move in a degraded mode despite a major onboard failure for
a
set distance corresponding to the maximum between defined refuge points
on the route where the train can be taken out of service;

~ The capability to push a failed train out of the core section;

~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being
present;"

Obviously the last requirement is highly compatible with low weight...

Paul

On Apr 10, 8:53*am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:44*am, John B wrote:

if there are reasons 26 metre cars can't be used;

I would suggest there would be door access issues with stock longer
than 20 m.

On 20 m cars like 317/319/321 and 450/377/375 and 376 et al door
spacing is approx 1/3 and 2/3 car. A 26 m car would be more like 1/4
and 3/4 door spacing - which would lead to longer dwell times - any
more to place doors further towards the middle of a 26 m car would
have to larger a throwover at curved platforms - of which there are
too many stations to resolve.

If you take a look a 444s at Waterloo where the country end of a 10car
is on the curve its easy to see how much a 23 m car throws over. *444s
have end-ish doors so its no big deal - but imagine even 1/3 + 2/3
spacing on one of those cars leads to a big gap.


The end doors only solve the problem when the doors are on the outside
of the curve (if you see what I mean). If the platform is on the
inside of the curve, then the end doors are further away from the
platform than at the 1/3, 2/3 positions. You can see this more clearly
on some of the tightly curved platforms on the underground. At some
platforms the middle doors have the smallest gap and at other
platforms the end doors are 'best'. Best example I can think of, off
the top of my head, is Bank Central line.

I'd have thought going the other way - to *shorter* but articlulated
cars might be better.


I certain agree with this.

On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for
full ATO for the core route?


As ATO, signals and signals control systems, headways and capacity are
something I am now involved with professionally, I can't see any
alternative to meet the long term tph targets they are aiming at.

Is that a first for main line commuter stock -

In UK yes - but isn't part of RER through central Paris on some kind
of ATO ?

degraded mode

Degraded modes are part of the specifications of all ATO systems.

~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being
present;"

Where is Sir Isaac Newton ?

--
Nick

On Apr 10, 11:14*am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for
full ATO for the core route?

As ATO, signals and signals control systems, headways and capacity are
something I am now involved with professionally, I can't see any
alternative to meet the long term tph targets they are aiming at.

Is that a first for main line commuter stock -

In UK yes - but isn't part of RER through central Paris on some kind
of ATO ?

degraded mode

Degraded modes are part of the specifications of all ATO systems.

~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being
present;"

Where is Sir Isaac Newton ?

--
Nick

Did anyone else spot "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide
an optimal solution overall"?

If you are only running on core routes, surely there will almost
always be other trains in the same section to use the regenerated
energy? North of the Thames, energy could be exported to the grid
anyway, and inverting substations could be considered for the SR
routes.

Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network
where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. I can't see it
being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line. Or is it
just in case units have to limp out of sections which have suffered a
loss of traction supply..?

On 10 Apr, 11:35, EE507 wrote:

(snip)

Did anyone else spot "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide
an optimal solution overall"?

If you are only running on core routes, surely there will almost
always be other trains in the same section to use the regenerated
energy? North of the Thames, energy could be exported to the grid
anyway, and inverting substations could be considered for the SR
routes.

Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network
where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. I can't see it
being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line. Or is it
just in case units have to limp out of sections which have suffered a
loss of traction supply..?

Almost certainly the latter, by the sounds of it.

EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:14 am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that
calls for full ATO for the core route?

As ATO, signals and signals control systems, headways and capacity
are something I am now involved with professionally, I can't see any
alternative to meet the long term tph targets they are aiming at.

~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction
supply being present;"

Did anyone else spot "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide
an optimal solution overall"?

If you are only running on core routes, surely there will almost
always be other trains in the same section to use the regenerated
energy? North of the Thames, energy could be exported to the grid
anyway, and inverting substations could be considered for the SR
routes.

Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network
where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. I can't see it
being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line.

That is exactly what the spec says immediately before your quote surely?

BTW - The South London RUS now suggests that the Arun Valley or Seaford
won't see Thameslink trains, unless they'll run further off-peak of
course...

Or is it just in case units have to limp out of sections
which have suffered a loss of traction supply..?

Well that is one of the reliability requirements - as I pointed out a couple
of posts ago - so some form of onboard energy storage is essential.

Paul

On Apr 9, 12:44 pm, John B wrote:

* the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach

Yeah, like that's going to happen. I've just flicked through
TheRailwayCentre.com and it looks like only 315s, 508s and some ex-LUL
trains (all inner-sub units) currently meet that criterion. As for
outer-sub units, 317s and 321s would be approximately 10 tonnes too
heavy in 4-car formation (and the 319s up to another 5 on top) while
the 4-car SR Electrostars are almost 50 tonnes above the limit! And
don't even get me started on the Desiros and Javelins (well OK I don't
have the figures to hand but they are very heavy indeed).

On 10 Apr, 08:53, D7666 wrote:

I'd have thought going the other way - to *shorter* but articlulated
cars might be better.

--
Nick

As in class 424 / 425 in Germany ? Internal shots showing lack of
corridor connections and spaciousness that might help meet the dwell
times.

http://richard-howe.fotopic.net/p15309894.html
and
http://richard-howe.fotopic.net/p15309867.html

2 and 4 car variants together shows the length of vehicle and door
spacing.
http://richard-howe.fotopic.net/p15309892.html

The seats are a tad "metro" and our loading guage would obviously make
then less generous of width. I have travelled on a couple of these on
journeys over an hour and they were actually rather comfy and the
window views were equivalent to their english desiro cousins.

Not sure if we would get away with the look ahead view like they do
though !

Richard