|
Post by snoggle on Jan 18, 2016 15:58:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jan 19, 2016 0:25:54 GMT
Surprised that it's got to this stage already. The Evo concept train merely took off. I wish it were more simple though. Just build new trains (with cabs) to replace the 72's and 73's and install CBTC. As is always the case, TfL try to bite off more than they can chew.
|
|
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 Jan 19, 2016 0:54:34 GMT
12-15 months to evaluate the bids seems quite a long time.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 19, 2016 13:24:36 GMT
12-15 months to evaluate the bids seems quite a long time. Not really. If the trains really are a genuine technical step change then the engineering assessment will be crucial. There may also be a myriad of issues to resolve about how the trains are brought into service, old stock decommissioned and then how signalling and control integration happens. I imagine bidders will be whittled down to two and then there will be an ongoing negotiation to get to Best and Final Offers before selection of the final bid. Getting all that sorted and done properly in 12-15 months looks like a bit of a challenge to me. There is also political risk in the background with an impending Mayoral election and then another in 2020. Either could force TfL to change its operational approach to these upgrades. I also want to see what the new Business Plan looks like. My understanding is that this next series of upgrades is currently unfunded but I may be wrong on that. Does LU really have enough money to commit to the Picc Line upgrade which is the urgent priority when the SSR signalling works are taking up to 5 years?
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jan 19, 2016 17:48:43 GMT
Could the freeze in fares have an impact on funding for these projects. It's currently a theme with this years Mayoral Elections. Even from my standards I think that a single zone fare Green Party proposal is OTT. But a fare freeze could still impact future funding if it means that TfL can't increase fares.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 478
|
Post by londoner on Feb 22, 2016 22:09:11 GMT
Really cannot wait for an upgrade to the Piccadilly line!
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 23, 2016 13:18:02 GMT
Damn it! I can't help but phrase all of these announcements now in terms like "In a UK no longer an EU member, what would the outcome be?"
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 23, 2016 14:03:14 GMT
Are there any outlines yet as to requirements of the trains? Maximum length of train/carriage, acceleration/braking, capacity?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 23, 2016 15:47:49 GMT
Are there any outlines yet as to requirements of the trains? Maximum length of train/carriage, acceleration/braking, capacity? content.tfl.gov.uk/ntfl-feasibility-report.pdf gives a few clues but nothing firm. There are some illustrative numbers for the Picc Line in the document. The ITT hasn't been published on line from what I can see.
|
|
|
Post by rail2210 on Feb 23, 2016 16:14:22 GMT
Is it known if all the new trains will be identical, or will lines have slightly different types of the new trains? For example, trains with more/less carriages on one line than those on other lines.
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Feb 23, 2016 20:23:12 GMT
Is it known if all the new trains will be identical, or will lines have slightly different types of the new trains? For example, trains with more/less carriages on one line than those on other lines. They might go for a variant like the S Stock, and call them T4, T6, T7, T8 Stock. T4 Because of the W&C.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 20:52:03 GMT
LUL could get tips from MTR, Hong Kong's Metro operator, as to methods for retrofitting platforms doors to large numbers of existing platforms on the operational railway, and doing it all in engineering hours too.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 23, 2016 22:45:59 GMT
Is it known if all the new trains will be identical, or will lines have slightly different types of the new trains? For example, trains with more/less carriages on one line than those on other lines. They might go for a variant like the S Stock, and call them T4, T6, T7, T8 Stock. T4 Because of the W&C. Quite sobering to think that on the whole system in a few years from now, there will only be 3 types of train: NTFL S Stock 2009 stock Zzzzzzzzxxxxxxxxx
|
|
|
Post by will on Feb 23, 2016 23:49:52 GMT
They might go for a variant like the S Stock, and call them T4, T6, T7, T8 Stock. T4 Because of the W&C. Quite sobering to think that on the whole system in a few years from now, there will only be 3 types of train: NTFL S Stock 2009 stock Zzzzzzzzxxxxxxxxx What about the 1995/6 stocks ?
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Feb 24, 2016 0:04:37 GMT
They might go for a variant like the S Stock, and call them T4, T6, T7, T8 Stock. T4 Because of the W&C. Quite sobering to think that on the whole system in a few years from now, there will only be 3 types of train: NTFL S Stock 2009 stock Zzzzzzzzxxxxxxxxx Well the 95's and 96's aren't planned for replacement, and I could see that replacing the 92's will be a bit of a stretch, particularly when you consider that they will undergo a HOPL and could be replaced with another design at a later stage along with said 95's and 96's. Oh and I doubt that 'New Tube For London' Stock for a name will last, let's just call them 2025 Stock provided TfL can source the new trains in time and on budget.
|
|
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 Feb 24, 2016 0:11:38 GMT
The 2009 stock will be due for replacement by the time the NTFL rollout is complete at the present rate.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 24, 2016 0:22:16 GMT
Quite sobering to think that on the whole system in a few years from now, there will only be 3 types of train: NTFL S Stock 2009 stock Zzzzzzzzxxxxxxxxx Well the 95's and 96's aren't planned for replacement, and I could see that replacing the 92's will be a bit of a stretch, particularly when you consider that they will undergo a HOPL and could be replaced with another design at a later stage along with said 95's and 96's. Oh and I doubt that 'New Tube For London' Stock for a name will last, let's just call them 2025 Stock provided TfL can source the new trains in time and on budget. I don't see the 95 and 96 stocks going early. They are both excellent performers, especially the 95 stock, and in terms of technology the 95 stock in particular is not radically behind more recent trains. Despite a difference in build of only a few years they are both a massive advance on the 92 stock. 95 stock is well maintained by Alstom, and are generally in good condition and don't break down - it's very very rare for a 95 stock to sit down completely. They have also coped well with ATO, in fact the 95 stock seems to respond better a more aggressive driving style. When they do go wrong the TMS almost always flags up an issue to the driver allowing the train to be withdrawn from service and changed over before reaching a stage where the train will sit down, with most problems simply fixed by changing a modular part. The 96 stock traction package is obsolete however, although still reliable. As the stock is largely modular it wouldn't be too difficult to retraction them, in which case they will need to have a life to justify such investment. The TMS may well need upgrading at some stage too, it seems to get slower and slower with every mod the trains get, just changing the destination on the trains is like using a 1990s slow Windows computer! The only disadvantage of these trains, especially the 95s, is they're not massively capacious. In every other respect they're a pretty good train, and the fleet is big enough not to be withdrawn as a result of being non-standard.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 24, 2016 11:18:56 GMT
A new paper for financial authority to progress modernisation of the Picc Line and W&C Line as part of NTfL. content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-160302-11-ntfl-authority-2016.pdfConfirms the planned sequence is Piccadilly, Waterloo and City, Bakerloo and then Central. It will still take another 10 years to complete the first two lines! There is a rather guarded statement that the financial position faced by TfL provides sufficient funding is anticipated to be prioritised through the business planning process to allow the core elements of thisprogramme to proceed to enable delivery of critical asset renewal and capacity improvements. Note the references to "core elements" rather than full scope and "anticipated to be prioritised" in other words "not yet finalised". Para 3.22 in the paper sets out the thinking about the sequence of changed operation on the Picc and why the sequence of line upgrades has swapped round. Interestingly the summary business case for the PLU is included and shows a benefit / cost ratio of 4:1 which is a good score. Also TfL are saying there is no "do nothing" option because of the state / age of the assets so the upgrade is assessed against a "do minimum" set of asset interventions to keep things going.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Feb 24, 2016 12:25:42 GMT
A new paper for financial authority to progress modernisation of the Picc Line and W&C Line as part of NTfL. content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-160302-11-ntfl-authority-2016.pdfConfirms the planned sequence is Piccadilly, Waterloo and City, Bakerloo and then Central. It will still take another 10 years to complete the first two lines! There is a rather guarded statement that the financial position faced by TfL provides sufficient funding is anticipated to be prioritised through the business planning process to allow the core elements of thisprogramme to proceed to enable delivery of critical asset renewal and capacity improvements. Note the references to "core elements" rather than full scope and "anticipated to be prioritised" in other words "not yet finalised". Para 3.22 in the paper sets out the thinking about the sequence of changed operation on the Picc and why the sequence of line upgrades has swapped round. Interestingly the summary business case for the PLU is included and shows a benefit / cost ratio of 4:1 which is a good score. Also TfL are saying there is no "do nothing" option because of the state / age of the assets so the upgrade is assessed against a "do minimum" set of asset interventions to keep things going. It seems odd to do the W&C separately to the Central line. Unless there has been some joined up thinking (oh the horror!) and they are going to try to time the delivery of those down the chute at Waterloo to coincide with the rebuilding works there?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 24, 2016 12:41:29 GMT
It seems odd to do the W&C separately to the Central line. Unless there has been some joined up thinking (oh the horror!) and they are going to try to time the delivery of those down the chute at Waterloo to coincide with the rebuilding works there? Possibly not that odd. The W&C has burgeoning demand and can't cope. Something has to be done to raise capacity further given expected growth on SWT into Waterloo. It would also release a few units to the Central Line which may do nothing more than help bolster fleet availability but probably worth doing anyway given the plan to keep the 92 stock running for longer than planned given various fleet interventions planned in the future.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 24, 2016 13:42:20 GMT
It seems odd to do the W&C separately to the Central line. Unless there has been some joined up thinking (oh the horror!) and they are going to try to time the delivery of those down the chute at Waterloo to coincide with the rebuilding works there? Possibly not that odd. The W&C has burgeoning demand and can't cope. Something has to be done to raise capacity further given expected growth on SWT into Waterloo. It would also release a few units to the Central Line which may do nothing more than help bolster fleet availability but probably worth doing anyway given the plan to keep the 92 stock running for longer than planned given various fleet interventions planned in the future. Realistically I don't see the W&C units ever working on the Central Line. By the time they are released the Central units will themselves be not too far off replacement, and the scale of work needed to bring these units up to the specification of the main fleet would be quite major. I wonder if they'd even be able to source enough of the specialist equipment such as the ATP/ATO controllers, although of course there could be an option to make them middle units only which would reduce the amount of work. I can't see them being used for anything more than a source of parts. LU once before considered moving them to the Central Line and the cost and complexity of the required work killed it off, things would only be more difficult in the future. I'm dubious about how much further capacity can be added to the W&C. Tinkering with rolling stock layouts and frequencies is a drop in the ocean really. Either *massive* investment in completely rebuilding the line to accommodate longer trains, build a duplicate line, or implement an official passenger queuing system at Waterloo and Bank at peak times until some commuters decide to walk instead. I know which is the cheapest option out of those three!
|
|
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 Feb 24, 2016 18:24:23 GMT
I'm dubious about how much further capacity can be added to the W&C. Tinkering with rolling stock layouts and frequencies is a drop in the ocean really. Either *massive* investment in completely rebuilding the line to accommodate longer trains, build a duplicate line, or implement an official passenger queuing system at Waterloo and Bank at peak times until some commuters decide to walk instead. I know which is the cheapest option out of those three! Well back of the envelope calculations on a multitude of RIPAS threads over the years (probably enough for a pillar box full of envelopes) would suggest that a duplicate line would have a greater BCR than a rebuild. Automatic reversing would I think allow more TPH at the Waterloo end, and that has got to be cheaper than either a rebuild or duplication, but still more expensive than a queueing system - is there space for this at Bank? One other thing that I'm wondering is if the W&C gets the same trains as the Bakerloo, will the line transfer to being worked by Bakerloo drivers rather than Central line ones?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 26, 2016 19:11:28 GMT
It did at one point come under the auspices of the Bloo, didn't it?
A five car class 487 was slightly longer than the replacement 92 clones, its possible that now we are going back to shorter carriages this would become an option.
Surely the ultimate limit on how long a train could be is set by the innermost double doors of the train being at the extreme ends of the shortest platform; most likely between headwalls of a tunnel station. That would be with SDO, in cab platform cctv, and the block's end being moved appropriately.
I did start long ago trying to write out a list of platform lengths, but they became so difficult to decipher, and there were so many of them, that I never got far! On the Pic though its supposed to be surprisingly less than 350'?
|
|
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 Feb 26, 2016 21:01:21 GMT
Surely the ultimate limit on how long a train could be is set by the innermost double doors of the train being at the extreme ends of the shortest platform; most likely between headwalls of a tunnel station. That would be with SDO, in cab platform cctv, and the block's end being moved appropriately. I think actually the limit is not intermediate but rather terminal platforms. The train must not foul the set of points that are the shortest distance away from the stopping mark. In practical terms, if a train gets too long then capacity is reduced - SDO increases dwell times, tipping out times increase (maybe can be countered with more staff?), and (with fixed block signalling) signal blocks get exceeded.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Feb 26, 2016 21:44:57 GMT
Can't say what it was but saw a modification being fitted to a 96 stock train on Tuesday which suggests they will be around for a long time.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Feb 26, 2016 21:52:46 GMT
Can't say what it was but saw a modification being fitted to a 96 stock train on Tuesday which suggests they will be around for a long time. They're finally getting rid of the horrendous turquiose turkoise teal panels?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 18:52:15 GMT
Can't say what it was but saw a modification being fitted to a 96 stock train on Tuesday which suggests they will be around for a long time. They're finally getting rid of the horrendous turquiose turkoise teal panels? Indeed, they are absoluteness hideous. Don't know how that got signed off!
|
|
|
Post by will on Feb 27, 2016 20:22:02 GMT
What colour will the new ones be ?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Feb 27, 2016 20:23:45 GMT
not happening, I saw a modification being made to train. Not panel changes.
|
|
|
Post by will on Feb 27, 2016 20:33:56 GMT
not happening, I saw a modification being made to train. Not panel changes. I got my hopes up there
|
|