Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2009 3:30:27 GMT
Looking thought Wikipedia I noticed that there was mention of 2013 stock for the Bakerloo (due 2014) and 2014 stock for the Piccadilly (due 2015-2018).
Is there any further info on these new stocks, proposed designs etc.
I take it that they won't be based on the 2009 stock as I understand these are wider than normal stock to take advantage of the Victoria's wider tunnels.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 15, 2009 3:57:47 GMT
The wiki articals were possibly created by someone over enthused. The Bakerloo is gonna be upgraded last, I'm sure its been said?
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 15, 2009 5:05:42 GMT
New trains for the Picc have been named 2012 stock; Bakerloo planned for about 2018/2020
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jun 15, 2009 7:01:42 GMT
I doubt the picc will get replacement stock anywhere near 2012! Is there any news on the 1973 replacement? Last I heard was the tenders were for the new trains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2009 13:56:46 GMT
I was told today by a driver on the picc the new trains will be an amalgamation between the 95 and 96 ts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2009 14:13:30 GMT
The wiki articals were possibly created by someone over enthused. The Bakerloo is gonna be upgraded last, I'm sure its been said? Thats what I thought. Its been mentioned elsewhere on this board that in the meantime displaced 1967 stock would be transferred to the Bakerloo to run with the 1972 stock. So why transfer them just to replace them in a few years? After a little further digging I found someone even went as far as to create a page for the 2014 stock, but nothing for the 2013.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 15, 2009 14:19:16 GMT
The 67's wont go to the Bakerloo so I understand, TfL are waiting for a total line upgrade before the Watford and possibly Hayes schemes are included. SH, I seem to recall someone on a board had said the tender design looked 'familiar'
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 15, 2009 15:50:35 GMT
Sorry the previous post could have done with expansion! The 67 would have gone to the Bakerloo to augment its fleet to provide additional trains for a re-extension to Watford. Since noone has any cash, and the project is pretty low priority, its been pushed back and intergrated with the general line upgrade in 2019, which saves the money of conversion of an obsolete group of cars.
The picc getting stock similar to the Jub and Northern would standadize tublines fleet to a certain extent, and would also give weight to using the same basic design a fourth time if the Northern after splitting needs extra cars. And then theres Battersea too...
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jun 15, 2009 18:32:45 GMT
Oh no, to replace the stylish 73s with that rubbish will be aweful! Where have the days of LU being at the head of design gone?
|
|
|
Post by ghostofjk on Jun 15, 2009 18:35:03 GMT
Well... the 95/96TS was designed in the early/mid-90s, wasn't it? Are we seriously going to have 20-year old designs dusted off and built again for 2014? Hardly seems to make any sense.
A few extra 95TS if required after the Northern is split, for the sake of maintaining a standard fleet, I could just about understand. But more of the same for the Picc?
With a working life of 40 years, the technology will be 60 years old by the time it's retired. OK, we had it with 59/62TS... but would it really be done again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2009 18:39:00 GMT
I doubt the picc will get replacement stock anywhere near 2012! Is there any news on the 1973 replacement? Last I heard was the tenders were for the new trains. I think you are looking closer to 2017!
|
|
|
Post by flippyff on Jun 15, 2009 19:14:41 GMT
I originally posted this link to the Tubegroup Yahoo group back in March..... ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:72692-2009:TEXT:EN:HTML"Short description of the contract or purchase(s): The Service Provider will be required to undertake a preliminary rolling stock design, in sufficient detail, to demonstrate compliance with LUL's future rolling stock requirements. The purpose of the study is to validate the investment business case for a modern rolling stock design. The study will inform LUL's future procurement and asset renewal strategies for Bakerloo (2018/2020), Central line (2020/2033); and in the longer term other LUL rolling stock." "Total quantity or scope: — Deliver a rolling stock design concept that meet LUL's business objectives (specifically optimised for capacity, energy consumption, reliability and whole life 'system' costs), — Deliver a logical, consistent and comprehensive set of documents that describe the rolling stock concept and associated performance characteristics, — Develop High level programme - award of contract to new fleet introduction, — Quantified technology and delivery risks register associated with the design and implementation programme."
HTIOI
Simon
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 15, 2009 22:04:16 GMT
Well... the 95/96TS was designed in the early/mid-90s, wasn't it? Are we seriously going to have 20-year old designs dusted off and built again for 2014? Hardly seems to make any sense. More like 30 - they were designed to match the 1983 stock!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 16, 2009 5:07:30 GMT
Well... the 95/96TS was designed in the early/mid-90s, wasn't it? Are we seriously going to have 20-year old designs dusted off and built again for 2014? Hardly seems to make any sense. More like 30 - they were designed to match the 1983 stock! Actually, the 1996 tube stock was all - new. the original plan was to build new cars to match the 83ts, but this plan was shelved before the contract was let. in terms of bodyshell and bogies, 96 tube stock is up to date. things that have changed are the train control systems and traction packages. current versions of these will be fitted to the Piccadilly line trains
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 16, 2009 17:00:13 GMT
I think it was just the window height that hung over in terms of design from the 83ts
|
|
|
Post by kewgardensteleport on Jun 16, 2009 18:18:26 GMT
The 67's wont go to the Bakerloo so I understand, TfL are waiting for a total line upgrade before the Watford and possibly Hayes schemes are included. But the 67 Stock are the most comfortable tube trains. It's such a relief to get off a horrible Southern 377, 455, or (slightly less horrible) 456 and onto one of those. I wish they'd scrap the 92 Stock instead (or at least the ones on the Central Line -- they're bearable on the Drain). Come to think of it, there's an idea: mixed 67 and 72 Stock to the Central, and 92 to the Bakerloo... I'd walk to Lancaster Gate every time! And Hayes? Presumably that's E&C → Camberwell → Peckham → Lewisham then BR, but why not Orpington or Dartford (or even Angerstein Wharf!)?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 16, 2009 18:30:17 GMT
Its a nice dream! The 92ts is a cattle truck; high volume, low comfort. It does the job for peak hours. But can you imagine coming from Ongar to say Westfields on one? I think thats the route preferred. The good people at skyscraper city seem to think that Bromley North is better. Hayes seemes to make sense though; its not an out and out duplicate of an existing corridor, yet is between others nicely. It allows complete segregation if desired, and doesnt require formations to be widened. This is the thread concerned with it; and for the admins I'm only linking it as theres too much info/discussion to duplicate sucessfully! www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=482306
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 16, 2009 20:59:09 GMT
Come to think of it, there's an idea: mixed 67 and 72 Stock to the Central, and 92 to the Bakerloo... I'd walk to Lancaster Gate every time! So the Bakerloo will then suffer with the 1992s! Being serious though think about how impractical that would be - the 1992 stock work very well on the central line in conjunction with the signalling.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 16, 2009 21:27:28 GMT
Being serious though think about how impractical that would be - the 1992 stock work very well on the central line in conjunction with the signalling. I'm sure you could do a cost/benefit analysis on checking out what suppression would be needed and on which side (track vs. signal vs. stock). AFAICR nearly all of the Bakerloo has jointless TCs apart from a bit round Baker St., beyond Queen's Park they're 83 1/3Hz double rail, but when this became 3rd rail only, the TC's were converted to single rail, still using the Westinghouse equipment. One running rail was used for TC purposes and the other for traction return with the neggy connected. Not too sure if this is still the case after the last bout of resignalling, but the TCs would be double immunised. Note that I am not for one moment suggesting that the Bakerloo has a Central flavour of ATO in the future. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kewgardensteleport on Jun 17, 2009 3:05:29 GMT
Its a nice dream! The 92ts is a cattle truck; high volume, low comfort. It does the job for peak hours. But can you imagine coming from Ongar to say Westfields on one? And of course, yes, the Central Line gets wedged in rush hour between Bank and Stratford, but the same can be said about the Victoria Line between Oxford Circus and Victoria. So we know the 67 stock isn't exactly bad at coping with the sorts of level of crowding that would be illegal for veal calves. Thanks for that. There are certainly some odd ideas in that thread. On a certain level, one can't help wishing the real trains went to Addiscombe, with the trams serving those last three stations to Hayes, all of which are surrounded by that transit-unfriendly mix of ultra-low-density housing, fields, woodland, golf courses, and (at least in one case) just enough surface-level car parking to make a significant hit on the pedshed without having any spaces off-peak. If that were anywhere other than London, it would be a single-track line with an hourly Pacer. So the Bakerloo will then suffer with the 1992s! Never mind. Most of the Bakerloo's ridership seems to be between Paddington and Waterloo, so it's not that much longer than the Drain in practice. When bits aren't falling off them. ;D But, being serious, I agree. It's obvious when they're playing the it's-Sunday-let's-practice-manual-driving game (that may even be partly to blame for the "London Underground minute" myth). Note that I am not for one moment suggesting that the Bakerloo has a Central flavour of ATO in the future. ;D All that frivolity somehow feels worthwhile...
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 17, 2009 6:27:25 GMT
The 1992 stock seem to be held together with duct tape at the moment. They probably wouldn't survive a change of depot.
I'm not sure about arguments for high capacity. Look at any crowded tube train with longitudinal seats, and between them you see an uninviting tangle of legs, bags, and rucksacks. I've always maintained that 2+1 transverse seating would form a more clearly defined aisle in which to stand, and therefore would have more actual (as opposed to theoretical) capacity. Of course, wheels get in the way in some parts of the carriage, but not in the middle. Of courase, longitudinal benches would also be cheaper to install ...
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jun 17, 2009 10:34:09 GMT
And Hayes? Presumably that's E&C → Camberwell → Peckham → Lewisham then BR, but why not Orpington or Dartford (or even Angerstein Wharf!)? Hayes is self-contained south of Lewisham. They won't like the new lack of city access. Orpington would leave Chelsfield-Sevenoaks harder to serve (unless you just have fast trains first stop Orpington) and the Victoria-Orpington services would go. Then again, you could do it (and also serve Bromley North). Dartford is hard - do you take the shortest route, via Sidcup, causing problems east of there. Also, given that there are peak semi-fast trains, and you'd be adding about 4 stops to the route of stoppers between zone 1 and Hither Green (let alone that we're talking Elephant, not London Bridge for the first zone 1 station), giving them smaller trains (all SE suburbans will be 12-car in the next few years, just a couple on the via Greenwich route that need doing). You'd also add a lot of cost, as Dartford upgrades would need to be done as part of that. Dartford via Bexleyheath is a non-starter. 11tph 12-car at peak times and that's without it being a TfL service, which is a huge magnet in SE London - Woolwich Arsenal DLR and North Greenwich have a lot of people bussing it in from the Bexleyheath line catchment area as the want to use TfL services, not Southeastern. If you TfL the Bexleyheath line, but not the others, then big problems will happen. You'd get all the Sidcup people bussing it to Bexleyheath line stations as well. I don't know whether there'd be enough capacity, given how busy Lewisham-Elephant will be and those 12-car trains on NR will be PIXC from about Blackheath in 2019 (OK, you have 3tph slack, as the Victoria trains aren't PIXC). Edit: Here is my Fantasy Tube Map, though I haven't entered too much into the realms of fantasy. Note that I send the Northern to Bromley North and Sidcup.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 17, 2009 12:01:55 GMT
Keeping the thread on-topic about the trains - there is a proposals and suggestions board for the services. Picking up on max: I'm not sure about arguments for high capacity. Look at any crowded tube train with longitudinal seats, and between them you see an uninviting tangle of legs, bags, and rucksacks. I've always maintained that 2+1 transverse seating would form a more clearly defined aisle in which to stand, and therefore would have more actual (as opposed to theoretical) capacity. Of course, wheels get in the way in some parts of the carriage, but not in the middle. Of courase, longitudinal benches would also be cheaper to install ... I was given to understand that the reason for longitudinal seating was the apparently quicker access and egress at staions - I've seen the modelling for the Crossrail stock - is there any hard data around about longitudinal seating vs. transverse? I've had a look, but my google-fu is weak today.
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 17, 2009 13:41:59 GMT
I was given to understand that the reason for longitudinal seating was the apparently quicker access and egress at staions - I've seen the modelling for the Crossrail stock - is there any hard data around about longitudinal seating vs. transverse? I've had a look, but my google-fu is weak today. I would always be very wary about any mathematical modelling of human behaviour. It just don't work in practice. For example, how often does a standee bus fill to its intended capacity? Passengers have a way of expanding themselves so as to attempt to limit the numbers of people squeezing round them. Its a shame that there is no unrefurbished C stock left. I would be happy to sit on Liverpool Street for a couple of hours with a stopwatch and a video camera just to make a direct comparison of the two. Until recently, Paris Metro stock had a similar seating layout to the old C stock, most of it still does, and I don't recall seeing the network grinding to a halt as a result.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 17, 2009 13:45:15 GMT
I would always be very wary about any mathematical modelling of human behaviour. It just don't work in practice. Agreed. Utterly.
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 17, 2009 14:35:57 GMT
Here is my Fantasy Tube Map, though I haven't entered too much into the realms of fantasy. Note that I send the Northern to Bromley North and Sidcup. Interesting, a few things to say, but I will wait until this is posted in the Railway Ideas section before I write a book!
|
|
|
Post by kewgardensteleport on Jun 17, 2009 16:19:48 GMT
Keeping the thread on-topic about the trains - there is a proposals and suggestions board for the services. And I've started a thread there now for Max's second railway book. I'm not sure about arguments for high capacity. Look at any crowded tube train with longitudinal seats, and between them you see an uninviting tangle of legs, bags, and rucksacks. I've always maintained that 2+1 transverse seating would form a more clearly defined aisle in which to stand, and therefore would have more actual (as opposed to theoretical) capacity. Of course, wheels get in the way in some parts of the carriage, but not in the middle. Of courase, longitudinal benches would also be cheaper to install ... The wheels can probably be got around by a mix of face-to-face and face-to-back (bus-style) seating. And I think you have a good point with 2+1 -- it's probably closest to how the 2+2 on the Vic gets used. And with end arm-rests, you'd be able to enforce the aisle. I like it.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 23, 2009 22:31:01 GMT
All you need to do is stand at Westminster in the rush hour and watch a 'D' Stock train attempt to clear the platform, generally it will leave some punters behind. Yet the smaller 'C' Stock will hoover up the entire platform and depart. I have sat and watched this (sad I know!) and it is a fact. A few years ago a crush loaded (football traffic) 'C' Stock sat down outside Fulham Broadway and an empty 'D' Stock was sent forward to carry out a cross transfer, the 'D' Stock ended up loaded and the 'C' Stock still had a number of punters left on board (a colleague was at this detrainment so the info is reasonably accurate). Computer modelling has come on in leaps and bounds over the past few years and the clear indication is that, for mass transit systems, longitudinal seating is the way to go. Tube trains are indeed limited by the incursion of the wheels into the saloon but even on 72/67ts you can plainly see that punters do not like pushing down the aisle between the transverse seats but are much more willing to move down between longitudinal seating areas. Not to mention the fact that in non peak hours most people sit on the transverse seat nearest the aisle which then creates a 'no go' zone next to them because nobody likes to push past in order to get to the seat next to the window!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 28, 2009 7:32:04 GMT
How odd. I usually sit by the window so I have something to look at for the journey, and I've noticed that a fair amount of people on the Met do the same. However perhaps this is different for tube lines because sitting so near to the tunnel's side could perhaps seem more dangerous to the subconscience? Anyway, back on topic...so more of the 95/6 stock then?
|
|