Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 3:10:31 GMT
Good Evening Everyone! I'm working on a Design Portfolio for my application in the Degree on Product Design next year, as I haven't got any answer from TfL regarding my application for the Engineering Apprenticeship. One of the works I'm currently working on is a Deep Tube train which I draw at first and now I'm modelling it. It's an articulated EMU based on dimensions from 1972/3, 1995/6 and 2009 Stock, adapted for metrical system engineering. The idea of this tube stock is a bogie and suspended car consist to lower radius offset on curves and door-to-platform automatic extensions, in order to reduce dangerous gaps between train and platform on curved stations. Both bogie and suspended cars will have large doors to maximize passenger boarding rate and through-gangways capable of hold standing passengers. The cab is thought to have as much glazed surface as possible and to be able to slide the instrument panel to the left, centre and right side of the cab. Some renders have been done already to check the overall look of the train. Some changes are still going to be made and the length of the cars may be changed after testing in the railway simulator, to check the distance between the doors and the platforms. Hope you enjoy. Any advice is welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 11, 2013 8:01:25 GMT
Curved cab glass is a no no. Doors are too big to be supported and don't mess with the roundel.
Seats? Would you like to stand all the way from Cockfosters to Central London?
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,415
|
Post by DWS on Dec 11, 2013 9:01:42 GMT
The remit for the new stock for the deep tube project is for a train with out a Cab.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 11, 2013 10:06:39 GMT
Wheels appear to be in the doorway...
|
|
|
Post by version3point1 on Dec 13, 2013 12:25:55 GMT
Are you taking into account the kinematic profile? Because I really don't think the first couple of cars are going to make it round the South Ken bends!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 16:06:38 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,359
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 13, 2013 17:41:04 GMT
Are those really single leaf doors? Double leaf doors are much better as they effectively open and close at twice the speed. Also you can't have doors over bogies because the top of the wheels extend through the floor of the passenger compartment (beneath the seats). Unless you are using much smaller wheels, but then you'd have to be careful not to run into problems with clearance between the axle and conductor rails, etc.
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Dec 13, 2013 19:37:24 GMT
I'd strongly suggest putting the train destination ("Cockfosters" in your mockup) at the top of the train, where "Piccadilly" is now, as that's the traditional location for it.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Dec 15, 2013 1:35:01 GMT
I'm afraid the design looks inherently dangerous, nothing wrong with articulation in principle but the ends of the cars need to be supported. Thus I'd expect to see cars sharing bogies rather than having one or none as in your design.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 15, 2013 9:42:48 GMT
Are you trying to go for a tram-like layout with the doors and bogies? Something like this: www.lrta.org/Edinburgh/images/TechDrawing.jpegIn terms of graphics design and effort you've clearly put a lot of time into it, and visually its impressive. But, as others have commented, where doors and wheels co-incide your design seemingly ignors any conflict. Unless the wheels are very small, there exists a motor small enough to fit this space, and this can somehow avoid rail clearance issues, then your design hasn't taken into account quite a fundemental design constraint. Don't include it in a portfolio until you resolve this - it will not reflect well on your ability! You don't want to go to such time and effort only to be called up over something so fundemental!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2013 0:30:55 GMT
Not sure if this is the right thing to do. There are still other solutions to exploit before saying how the final design will look like. Right now I'm trying to make a bogey that can fit in the tight space to be at the same height as the platforms and for such I needed to either reduce the diameter of the wheels, or tilt them to find more space for bigger diameters. I tried to go for a Talgo approach so that I could handle the fourth rail clearance with some more freedom between running rails. Being unexperienced with 3rd and 4rth rail is a bit of a inconvenience for someone who normaly deals with overhead lines. I'm thinking of a dot matrix indicator for the inside that stands in the door hall. It should tell the destination, next station, time, temperature and which door will open or where is the next available door (in case one door is broken or the platform is too short). Doors will be of two leafs, each one made of an aluminium framework and either glass or a transparente polymer. The renderings don't clearly show that though. The interior is still under planning and will depend on if the cars are either the right lenght or too long. I'm thinking about a double longitudinal + transversal seating, with the last more to the ends of the consist. If a particular car needs to be maintained, each suspended car will have two joints for a dolly to be placed. Also, somewhere next week I'll be showing footage of the train running on Train Simulator 2014 along the Isle of Wight and London to Brighton lines.
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Dec 23, 2013 12:56:51 GMT
I'm afraid the design looks inherently dangerous, nothing wrong with articulation in principle but the ends of the cars need to be supported. Thus I'd expect to see cars sharing bogies rather than having one or none as in your design. I don't know that it's dangerous. Counter-intuitive, perhaps? I haven't got a picture link to hand but Alstom's abortive offering for Thameslink, the X'trapolis UK, featured just such a design: www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/alstom-unveils-xtrapolis-uk.htmlIt was reputedly NR's aversion to the axle loadings associated with articulation rather than the unusual detail of the design which led to rejection.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Dec 23, 2013 13:18:35 GMT
I'm afraid the design looks inherently dangerous, nothing wrong with articulation in principle but the ends of the cars need to be supported. Thus I'd expect to see cars sharing bogies rather than having one or none as in your design. I don't know that it's dangerous. Counter-intuitive, perhaps? I haven't got a picture link to hand but Alstom's abortive offering for Thameslink, the X'trapolis UK, featured just such a design: www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/alstom-unveils-xtrapolis-uk.htmlIt was reputedly NR's aversion to the axle loadings associated with articulation rather than the unusual detail of the design which led to rejection. You can go back further than that. There is a photo, page 89, in "The 1938 Tube Stock" by Peirs Connor, showing a two car articulated unit made up from cars 10011-11011 of 1938 stock. The chapter states "....articulation was still considered a possibility but its development was not advanced enough to allow mass production for the Piccadilly Line in time for the Heathrow opening." I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but wasn't articulation quite common on the pre war LNER? Sorry I can't add the photo, waiting for Santa to bring me a new scanner
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Dec 23, 2013 14:20:25 GMT
I don't know that it's dangerous. Counter-intuitive, perhaps? I haven't got a picture link to hand but Alstom's abortive offering for Thameslink, the X'trapolis UK, featured just such a design: www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/alstom-unveils-xtrapolis-uk.htmlIt was reputedly NR's aversion to the axle loadings associated with articulation rather than the unusual detail of the design which led to rejection. You can go back further than that. There is a photo, page 89, in "The 1938 Tube Stock" by Peirs Connor, showing a two car articulated unit made up from cars 10011-11011 of 1938 stock. The chapter states "....articulation was still considered a possibility but its development was not advanced enough to allow mass production for the Piccadilly Line in time for the Heathrow opening." I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but wasn't articulation quite common on the pre war LNER? Sorry I can't add the photo, waiting for Santa to bring me a new scanner Yes, articulation did feature on the LNER both on suburban stock (Quad-Art and Quint-Art) as well as articulated twins and triples on the 'Silver Jubilee' and 'Coronation' services. I believe the 1937-built Tyneside EMU twins were also articulated. Of course, these all employed the traditional method of articulation with the adjacent ends of adjoining vehicles mounted directly onto a shared two-axle bogie.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 23, 2013 17:44:43 GMT
Independent bogeys helps considerably, of course, if units need to be moved independently, e.g. shunted out of a tunnel following an incident. You can't crane them out!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 23, 2013 19:03:40 GMT
IIRC the APT was articulated and Eurostars are, though the Power Cars are conventional.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Dec 23, 2013 21:28:59 GMT
You can go back further than that. There is a photo, page 89, in "The 1938 Tube Stock" by Peirs Connor, showing a two car articulated unit made up from cars 10011-11011 of 1938 stock. The chapter states "....articulation was still considered a possibility but its development was not advanced enough to allow mass production for the Piccadilly Line in time for the Heathrow opening." I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but wasn't articulation quite common on the pre war LNER? Sorry I can't add the photo, waiting for Santa to bring me a new scanner Yes, articulation did feature on the LNER both on suburban stock (Quad-Art and Quint-Art) as well as articulated twins and triples on the 'Silver Jubilee' and 'Coronation' services. I believe the 1937-built Tyneside EMU twins were also articulated. Of course, these all employed the traditional method of articulation with the adjacent ends of adjoining vehicles mounted directly onto a shared two-axle bogie. Thanks for the info. Found the attached photo on the web
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2013 21:10:14 GMT
The Siemens contender, the Inspiro London, seems to be going in the same way the Alstom X'strapolis UK in what concerns articulation technologies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 0:31:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 15:38:56 GMT
I wonder why TfL scrapped that idea- it looked rather good!
|
|