Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2 Aug, 09:34, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:31:29 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 1 Aug, 13:39, "Richard J." wrote: Miles Bader wrote on 01 August 2009 02:53:13 *... Paul Corfield writes: I have never seen the inside of these trains. *I cannot understand why they are not fitted with straps and a hanging rail after the manner of tube trains. They are -http://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/3769795952/ The amount of bars and straps doesn't seem all that high though; maybe they don't expect so much overcrowding. It looks to me as if the straps were a last-minute addition, perhaps for the benefit of shorter passengers. *They didn't feature in earlier photos, e.g.http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/c...ain.php?id=765 The 376s were in service for a long time with nothing to hold on to in the door area. *You'd think the lesson would have been learned before the 378s were built, but apparently not. I stood in the door area when I rode one last week and held on to the fixed handrail. It's no different to the D78 refurbs on the District Line. Yes, that seems to have a similar function in the door area to the rails that were belatedly fitted to 376s. Really I was referring to the suggestion that the straps were a "last minute addition". You'd think that it would have been properly thought through this time after the 376 debacle. I can reach the new rails in the 376s and probably the rail in the 378s, but plenty of people wouldn't be able to, so the straps are needed. In the seating area of the 376s, there is a yellow stripe along the edge of the luggage rack, but I don't know if that means that people are specifically directed to hold on to it. *There is nothing else. On the 378s there are vertical stanchions as well as almost continuous handrails and strap hangers to hold on to. I note that the 378s are going to have think, chunky obstructions in the standing area (surprise surprise) that will not be quite big enough to act as dividing areas that people can lean on, but will be big enough to force people away from the edges, to rattle about in the middle. What is the chunky obstruction you refer to? Is it the double vertical stanchion between some of the seats? *I cannot see why you would to have people leaning on such things as they'd be almost leaning on people sitting down. That sort of happens on deep tube stock but then there is not the same space profile. The 378s do, at least, have some width to allow for plenty of standees and hopefully for people to circulate down the train. If the design means people can get on the train they wish to rather than waiting for the next one or the one after due to the crush then surely that is an advantage? Really I'd prefer that the one near the seats was a little wider (but not so thick), so that it would provide something to lean on and protect the heads of seated passengers. I'd prefer that the one nearer to the door could be removed if possible to allow a greater with for the perch. Does it serve a support function? It's not there on other somethingStars. What's the betting that that perch area is only wide enough for one and a half bums, thanks to the obstructions. *So, once again, a space that could have had two flip-up seats can now only accommodate one perching person, with legs probably splayed out for balance, further than those of a seated person. I think I agree with you about the width of the perch seat - it does look adequate only for one person. Not sure why you'd want tip up seats given these trains are designed to carry large numbers of people over short distances. I suspect you won't agree with this last comment so I'm off to retire to the bunker ;-) I was thinking of the Northern Line, where the ambience is so much better than on the otherwise similar trains on the Jubilee. A person leaning splays out their legs quite a long way and a person in a flip- up seat can tuck their feet under, and there's no problem with two side-by-side, as there is on the Jubilee. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 1, 12:06*pm, Andy wrote:
Isn't it the case that the loading gauge is the maximum size of train allowed to fit with the structure gauge. No. There is a gap between the the loading gauge and the structure gauge - the ''clearance'' I think the correct term is. -- Nick |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 2, 6:20*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:06*pm, Andy wrote: Isn't it the case that the loading gauge is the maximum size of train allowed to fit with the structure gauge. No. There is a gap between the the loading gauge and the structure gauge - the ''clearance'' I think the correct term is. Nick, do you ever read all of a post before commenting? "A train has to fit the defined loading gauge for the route and this means it will automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance)" The loading gauge for a route is the minium space available once the structure gauge and the clearance have been taken into account. In most locations, the structure gauge will be actually be greater than the loading gauge, but when looking at the route as the whole, the loading gauge is the important describer as it takes into account tight spots and relevant speed restrictions. |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Loading gauge... structure gauge...
Where does the 'kinematic envelope' fit in here? Does that one allow for bounce, sway and wobble? (Serious question). Regards, DigitisED (Eddie Bellass) Eddie & Margaret Bellass, Merseyside, United Kingdom. Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
18:16:23 on Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Eddie Bellass remarked: Where does the 'kinematic envelope' fit in here? Does that one allow for bounce, sway and wobble? Don't forget yaw and pitch. -- Roland Perry |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 2, 7:16*pm, "Eddie Bellass"
wrote: Loading gauge... structure gauge... Where does the 'kinematic envelope' fit in here? Does that one allow for bounce, sway and wobble? (Serious question). The loading gauge takes this into account. The clearance allowed on top of the minimum points of the structure gauge includes space for the kinematic envelope; a larger clearance is needed at higher speeds, or with bouncier trains and speed restrictions (reducing the kinematic envelope) might be needed to allow trains to fit through any tight spots. |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 2, 7:02*pm, Andy wrote:
, do you ever read all of a post before commenting? Yes. "A train has to fit the defined loading gauge for the route and this means it will automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance)" I was responding this paragraph: Isn't it the case that the loading gauge is the maximum size of train allowed to fit with the structure gauge. A train has to fit the defined loading gauge for the route and this means it will automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance). The first sentence is at variance with the second - the first is not correct because you imply the two gauges are the same. They are not the same. The 2nd sentence is more or less correct, so I did not comment. -- Nick |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 2, 7:45*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:02*pm, Andy wrote: , do you ever read all of a post before commenting? Yes. "A train has to fit the defined loading gauge for the route and this means it will automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance)" I * was responding *this paragraph: Isn't it the case that the loading gauge is the maximum size of train allowed to fit with the structure gauge. A train has to fit the defined loading gauge for the route and this means it will automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance). The first sentence is at variance with the second - the first is not correct because you imply the two gauges are the same. They are not the same. The 2nd sentence is more or less correct, so I did not comment. No the first sentence says loading gauge gives the allowable dimensions for the train to fit (within) the structure gauge, it most definately does say that they are the same. The second sentence then expands on this. I was answering your point which seemed to suggest that the loading gauge is defined by the train and not by the route. "As I understand the term, a 378 does fit the loading gauge ... because the term loading gauge refers to the train itself ... so a 378 always fits itself ![]() has always been defined by the limits of the infrastructure, not by the train. A new train can either be built to fit the existing loading gauge for a route, or the tight spots on the route can be relaxed to allow a new design to fit within a larger loading gauge. One of the classic examples of the latter is the singling of track through the tunnels on the Tonbridge - Hastings route upon electrification, adjusting the infrastructure to fit larger sized trains. There are many other recent examples too. |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:16:23 on Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Eddie Bellass remarked: Where does the 'kinematic envelope' fit in here? Does that one allow for bounce, sway and wobble? Don't forget yaw and pitch. Not to mention nutation. tom -- quick good |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Overground stock | London Transport | |||
Overground stock | London Transport | |||
More Overground closures... | London Transport | |||
More Overground trains | London Transport | |||
Overground new stock | London Transport |