Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 23:17:10 GMT
Externally hung doors are preferred on deep level tube stock because sliding pocket doors take up more space inside the cars and LUL are hardly likely to order trains with less space for passengers. Perhaps we should add that they save space by omitting the external skin panel fitted to a full pocket sliding door. The saving (in theory) is the clearance between the door and skin, any framing of the skin and the external skin itself. What I would be interested in learning is whether the sort of sliding door used on people movers, mini-buses and vans - the type that slide externally, but then swing into the door space to close flush with the sides - would be more applicable to urban rail? Regarding comments about design inefficiency: ... If a design remit is given that demands maximum standing space, one would get a different outcome. If composites are used to mould the seat shape into the actual body side, there is no separate back structure needed for the seat, just the padding applied to the car body side. This alone could be worth 50 - 100mm of floor space. Bear in mind that some seats are set further in to enclose the wheel arches. With a rail gauge of 1432mm (1438 on sharp curves), you are restricted to less than 1400mm (maybe 1300mm, I would like to know?) between seat box faces. That would mean an extra gap of about 100mm behind such seats (depends on actual tube stock width, which varies with stock). This may explain some of the observations reported in this thread. I have just submitted a plan to the Radical Train project competition that seeks to obtain as much standing space as possible within existing tube tunnels, tracks and stations. I'll share them on RIPAS in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on May 10, 2013 22:03:07 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,440
|
Post by Chris M on May 10, 2013 23:21:55 GMT
Well Hitaci certainly win the aesthetics vote hands down. I'm not sure Siemens could have come up with a way to make the train forward of the first doors uglier if they tried.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 7:18:45 GMT
The Siemens somehow doesn't look great when put in a station.
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on May 11, 2013 8:34:40 GMT
The Siemens looks like a prop from a 1970's horror 'B' movie.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,725
|
Post by class411 on May 11, 2013 9:20:38 GMT
Presumably, though, the æsthetics, both external and internal, will change considerably no matter who gets the contract.
The contract will be awarded on such things as price, MTBF and MTBS.
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jun 3, 2013 8:28:44 GMT
Indeed, look at some of the early designs of the 95ts.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jun 3, 2013 12:07:59 GMT
That Siemens one... I mean... in the station... is it just me, or does it seem rather phallic? Perhaps Siemens is rather too literally being associated with the design? Or some sort of "foreskin" design for the door opening...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 23:23:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 12:00:40 GMT
What I would be interested in learning is whether the sort of sliding door used on people movers, mini-buses and vans - the type that slide externally, but then swing into the door space to close flush with the sides - would be more applicable to urban rail? You just described what sounds like a plug door. Been used on urban rail for an awful long time. Clearly it has the advantage of making the inside of the train wider. The only issue is the track height and clearance needs to allow for the door to open otherwise there would be no point.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Aug 22, 2013 13:28:40 GMT
Not to mention that it will generally take more time to open (a couple of milliseconds, but this adds up over the course of the journey) and the fact that it requires more maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 22, 2013 15:19:23 GMT
Now that is class! You ought to be designing cinemas.
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Aug 22, 2013 23:01:30 GMT
What I would be interested in learning is whether the sort of sliding door used on people movers, mini-buses and vans - the type that slide externally, but then swing into the door space to close flush with the sides - would be more applicable to urban rail? You just described what sounds like a plug door. Been used on urban rail for an awful long time. Clearly it has the advantage of making the inside of the train wider. The only issue is the track height and clearance needs to allow for the door to open otherwise there would be no point. Plug doors are awful when it comes to reliability vs. sliding doors. They just aren't there yet with the reliability. The Siemens trains on the South West service are a good example. You press Door Open and it takes an age to open and occasionally they get stuck half way or they open all the way then come back in half way. The gap between the body and the sliding doors is much smaller on the newer trains like the 09ts. In the 92ts you can stick your hand in that gap.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,440
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 23, 2013 15:36:50 GMT
Plug doors were investigated for the S stock but no manufacturers could offer the reliability required for the intensive service with many tens of cycles every hour.
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Oct 5, 2013 11:46:10 GMT
A mock-up of the Inspiro (formerly known as 'EVO') concept train will be on display for 3 months from this Tuesday at at the Siemens’ Smart Cities exhibition at The Crystal (nearest DLR stop is Royal Victoria) The Mail's article has some particularly good photos including a video. I'm a big fan of this interior, especially the use of blues to typify the Piccadilly line. And to think there were proposals not too long ago for a rather bland 'New Train for London' concept...
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 5, 2013 18:43:50 GMT
The front end needs a total redesign. And I'm not convinced the space between cars offers as much room as it could. It'll be interesting to see stats for this.
|
|
|
Post by uzairjubilee on Oct 8, 2013 20:34:35 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,440
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 9, 2013 7:55:00 GMT
I really don't get the lack of side windows at the front? If there is a cab, the t/ops will want side vision (and doors) - indeed side vision is probably required to see staff and stopping marks, etc when driving manually in depots. If there isn't a cab then passengers want windows.
I also hate the aesthetics of the front end - it looks like the jaws of a lamprey have just been stuck on to the front of the train. I'd expect the front to seamlessly integrate with the main bodywork for better aerodynamics and less chance of water ingress etc.
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Oct 9, 2013 8:41:39 GMT
I note that they have included buffers at the front of the mock up.
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Oct 9, 2013 16:16:35 GMT
I really don't get the lack of side windows at the front? If there is a cab, the t/ops will want side vision (and doors) - indeed side vision is probably required to see staff and stopping marks, etc when driving manually in depots. If there isn't a cab then passengers want windows. I also hate the aesthetics of the front end - it looks like the jaws of a lamprey have just been stuck on to the front of the train. I'd expect the front to seamlessly integrate with the main bodywork for better aerodynamics and less chance of water ingress etc. Perhaps it is meant for driverless operation?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,440
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 9, 2013 16:27:24 GMT
If it is meant for driverless operation then why not allocate the space to passengers as the DLR trains do?
|
|
|
Post by uzairjubilee on Oct 9, 2013 18:55:32 GMT
Agree with Chris M. The train does not look aesthetically pleasing. Side view looks really bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 22:46:22 GMT
Great train for Andrex Labrador puppies!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,246
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 9, 2013 23:13:14 GMT
I like the circular tail-light, but the lack of windows at the front is disconcerting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 9:00:12 GMT
I read elsewhere that the front is being designed so that it can incorporate a drivers cab separted from the pax. saloon using a "false" (ie non-structural) wall that can subsequently be removed if/when they decide to go automated/driverless. Maybe that influences the positioning and extent of side windows.
If these trains end up "longer than the platforms" a al the Essies, then drivers (presumably) won't have use for side windows as the "heads" of the trainsets may be poking into tunnels, even in platform. Presumably, (again a la Essies,) the intent is that drivers use in cab CCTV instead of OPO mirrors/monitors and hanging out the windows.
And of course, drivers doors == extra cost.
I know it's only a mock up, but I can't tell if these are articulated/shared bogies or not - anyone know..?
The LCD panel anitmated signage looks like a great idea - but one wonders how vandal proof that would be...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 15:22:27 GMT
I read elsewhere that the front is being designed so that it can incorporate a drivers cab separted from the pax. saloon using a "false" (ie non-structural) wall that can subsequently be removed if/when they decide to go automated/driverless. Maybe that influences the positioning and extent of side windows. If these trains end up "longer than the platforms" a al the Essies, then drivers (presumably) won't have use for side windows as the "heads" of the trainsets may be poking into tunnels, even in platform. Presumably, (again a la Essies,) the intent is that drivers use in cab CCTV instead of OPO mirrors/monitors and hanging out the windows. And of course, drivers doors == extra cost. I know it's only a mock up, but I can't tell if these are articulated/shared bogies or not - anyone know..? The LCD panel anitmated signage looks like a great idea - but one wonders how vandal proof that would be...? Re shared bogies, I did ask the friendly staff member who was there but he did not really know. I took a photo of the articulated area and I would say the curve on the floor on one side may suggest that the bogie would be underneath the join and shared between carriages. Also the length of the carriage is very short just 2 double doors on the carriage which would mean an awful lot of bogies and less space for all the other under floor equipment eg air conditioning if they can work out how to get the heat out of the tunnels. I do hope they share bogies a la DLR as I find the S stock articulation rather useless as a comfortable place to have to spend a commute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 20:45:58 GMT
Some excellent photos.
These new units are supposed to have articulated bogies freeing up space under the units for air conditioning systems to be installed.
The latest issue of Modern Railways has a good article on this
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Oct 10, 2013 20:58:05 GMT
If the cars are short then no doubt they are looking at one or two wheels together per car. I don't mean one wheel at either end, I mean one wheel or two wheels at one end of each car. This will give much more space for air conditioning and other things.
|
|