Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
on Alstom's site:
http://www.transport.alstom.com/home...=EN&dir=/home/ "At the heart of the train architecture is Bogie Offset Articulation which reduces the number of bogies by up to 30%, allowing the carriages to be shorter and wider and thus optimize the vehicle gauge. This in turn creates more passenger space and comfort. A wide, uninterrupted aisle and spacious gangways are created throughout the train, improving the feeling of security for passengers as well as mobility." "Safety onboard is increased as the energy absorption areas are concentrated in the elongated front end of the train rather than between carriages, making these areas safer for passengers and crew." "The door configuration is geared to reduce stopping times at stations by making the boarding and alighting process more efficient, particularly on high-density routes. Two sets of double doors are situated in the centre of each carriage, providing 25% more doors than a conventional trainset, per equivalent length. The shorter carriages of X`Trapolis are also closer to platform edges, especially when these are curved, reducing the stepping distance from train to platform by almost half." I reckon there could be some debate about the door setup, I don't see how two sets of double doors in the centre of each carriage provides 25% more doors than a 1/3 - 2/3 set up, unless of course the carriages are somewhat shorter than 20m... Alstom themselves don't explicitly mention Thameslink/Crossrail, but according to the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6dfe18d8-a...44feabdc0.html This closely follows Siemens and Bombardiers offerings, the Thameslink decision is imminent IIRC... Paul S |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
news ![]() I reckon there could be some debate about the door setup, I don't see how two sets of double doors in the centre of each carriage provides 25% more doors than a 1/3 - 2/3 set up, unless of course the carriages are somewhat shorter than 20m... Yes, as with any articulated train, the carriages will be much shorter than the equivalent non-articulated version. Think of two sets of double doors between *each* pair of bogies, rather than alternate pairs of bogies. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recliner wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message news ![]() I reckon there could be some debate about the door setup, I don't see how two sets of double doors in the centre of each carriage provides 25% more doors than a 1/3 - 2/3 set up, unless of course the carriages are somewhat shorter than 20m... Yes, as with any articulated train, the carriages will be much shorter than the equivalent non-articulated version. Think of two sets of double doors between *each* pair of bogies, rather than alternate pairs of bogies. Indeed, if my maths is right, they'll be using 15 x 16m individual vehicles (average - cos the end cars will be longer and 'crumplier'), in a 240m full length unit (FLU), 10 in the 160m RLU... Paul S |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recliner coughed up some electrons that declared:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message news ![]() I reckon there could be some debate about the door setup, I don't see how two sets of double doors in the centre of each carriage provides 25% more doors than a 1/3 - 2/3 set up, unless of course the carriages are somewhat shorter than 20m... Yes, as with any articulated train, the carriages will be much shorter than the equivalent non-articulated version. Think of two sets of double doors between *each* pair of bogies, rather than alternate pairs of bogies. Is that the best picture they could do: http://www.transport.alstom.com/home...5583_59675.jpg ? |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" wrote in message
. com Paul Scott schrieb: "At the heart of the train architecture is Bogie Offset Articulation which reduces the number of bogies by up to 30%, allowing the carriages to be shorter and wider and thus optimize the vehicle gauge. That would only be true, if the /bogie/ distance is shorter, or do they use two turning points on the articulation joint? I think you get this genuine advantage by having the articulation joint significantly offset from the bogie pivot point. Effectively, on a curve, the body moves outward so the inside part of the body that would otherwise foul a platform or tunnel is moved away from it, so the body can be made wider. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 16, 3:43*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: on Alstom's site: http://www.transport.alstom.com/home...ageId=EN&dir=/.... "At the heart of the train architecture is Bogie Offset Articulation which reduces the number of bogies by up to 30%, allowing the carriages to be shorter and wider and thus optimize the vehicle gauge. This in turn creates more passenger space and comfort. A wide, uninterrupted aisle and spacious gangways are created throughout the train, improving the feeling of security for passengers as well as mobility." "Safety onboard is increased as the energy absorption areas are concentrated in the elongated front end of the train rather than between carriages, making these areas safer for passengers and crew." "The door configuration is geared to reduce stopping times at stations by making the boarding and alighting process more efficient, particularly on high-density routes. Two sets of double doors are situated in the centre of each carriage, providing 25% more doors than a conventional trainset, per equivalent length. The shorter carriages of X`Trapolis are also closer to platform edges, especially when these are curved, reducing the stepping distance from train to platform by almost half." I reckon there could be some debate about the door setup, I don't see how two sets of double doors in the centre of each carriage *provides 25% more doors than a 1/3 - 2/3 set up, unless of course the carriages are somewhat shorter than 20m... Alstom themselves don't explicitly mention Thameslink/Crossrail, but according to the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6dfe18d8-a...44feabdc0.html This closely follows Siemens and Bombardiers offerings, the Thameslink decision is imminent IIRC... Paul S Looks a bit daft to me. Why not just have one huge door in the centre rather than two? For reasons of structural integrity perhaps? I'd say the end cars don't need double doors either. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
London Crossrail likely to work any better than Thameslink? | London Transport | |||
Boris: Crossrail not yet "signed, sealed and delivered" [was:Transport Secretary vows to finish Crossrail] | London Transport | |||
Exciting news on Thameslink 2000 (now "Thameslink Project") | London Transport | |||
Thameslink before Crossrail? | London Transport | |||
Optimum configuration of Crossrail (Was: Diesel Electric Trains on CrossRail) | London Transport |