|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 13, 2017 12:59:27 GMT
I doubt anyone in LU has yet thought about the bulk fleet renewal on the Jubilee. It's 20 years away based on 40 year service life.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 13, 2017 17:49:55 GMT
Would changing the assumed lifespan to 50 years make any difference to the business plan?
Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise - longer cars ultimately are derived from the 73 stock, the solution of which was conceived to satisfy certain conditions that now, perhaps, are moot points. The most obvious comparison of 73/95/96ts to conventional 52' cars is that shorter cars produce a train of similar length but with more doors. With in cab CCTV now too, the need for a full train to berth cab-to-cab in the most limited of underground platforms isn't perhaps strictly necessary either. Therefore, perpetuating the longer car design might have drawbacks, or, at least, unnecessary limitations.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 13, 2017 21:32:13 GMT
The biggest single disadvantage of longer cars is larger gaps at curved platforms. They do have some other advantages though - fewer couplers require less maintenance (how does this translate to walk-through cars?), fewer bogies probably mean less track ware - but articulated cars that share bogies have even fewer.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 14, 2017 6:41:57 GMT
Further info from LU:
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 14, 2017 8:20:57 GMT
The biggest single disadvantage of longer cars is larger gaps at curved platforms. They do have some other advantages though - fewer couplers require less maintenance (how does this translate to walk-through cars?), fewer bogies probably mean less track ware - but articulated cars that share bogies have even fewer. However I believe articulated cars are not as stable and tend to sway a bit more compared to a car of the same length but fitted with two conventional bogies. This sway in articulated cars can be reduced by the simple expedient of making them shorter - but doing so increases the number of articulated bogies needed per unit. As a consequence articulation on LU doesn't really bring any overall reduction in the number of wheels per unit as it were.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 14, 2017 8:31:39 GMT
Thanks DStock7080
That information rather confirms where the plan for extra trains is headed.
With the World Class Capacity team also seemingly being reassigned, it demonstrates that the need to tighten the TFL purse strings goes beyond just deferring(abandoning) the additional trains idea.
A few years from now, hindsight (and passenger data) will doubtless show just how astute this decision was.
I am intrigued to know what lies beneath those bold statements about how the Elizabeth Line will impact travel patterns. I vaguely recall earlier articles suggested that Crossrail (aka Elizabeth) would be overloaded almost as soon as it opens, and not so attractive for existing Jubilee passengers after all.
It is interesting they choose to single out eastbound passengers? Assuming we are talking about daily flows that only equates to diverting the passenger equivalent of 10 full jubilee trains across the entire day - which is far less than the potential daily carrying capacity of the abandoned "deferred" additional train order.
Hence I hope someone in TFL towers is working on plan "b, c, d...", as the train manufacturers will presumably focus all their attention on preparing tenders for the new deep level stock, and won't want the current manufacturing jigs jamming up valuable production line space (unless they are suitably incentivised). So once the current tenders for extra trains expire, the potential for a follow-on order for the current train design probably goes too.
Hey Ho. Its done now and just like MLX, its probably time to close this thread too and move on.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 14, 2017 13:16:42 GMT
The biggest single disadvantage of longer cars is larger gaps at curved platforms. They do have some other advantages though - fewer couplers require less maintenance (how does this translate to walk-through cars?), fewer bogies probably mean less track ware - but articulated cars that share bogies have even fewer. However I believe articulated cars are not as stable and tend to sway a bit more compared to a car of the same length but fitted with two conventional bogies. This sway in articulated cars can be reduced by the simple expedient of making them shorter - but doing so increases the number of articulated bogies needed per unit. As a consequence articulation on LU doesn't really bring any overall reduction in the number of wheels per unit as it were. Some of our younger members may not be aware that articulation has been tried on the LU. Two of the original 1935(which begat the 1938 stock) were modified as an articlated unit, cars Nos 10011-11011. Apparently they would have been used on the Piccadilly extension to Heathrow, but the devlopment was not advanced enough to allow mass production. For a photograph check out Piers Connors definative history "The 1938 Tube Stock", Capital Transport, page 89.
|
|
|
Post by xercesfobe on Oct 14, 2017 17:55:16 GMT
Khan needs to be replaced with someone that understands railways!😡
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 14, 2017 19:01:20 GMT
Khan needs to be replaced with someone that understands railways!😡 I recommend you exercise your democratic right in May 2020. However, neither the current financial situation nor the decisions made by TfL (possibly) as a result of it are 100% the responsibility of any one person in isolation. I think saying more would risk straying into the sort of political discussion that is not allowed on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 14, 2017 19:11:54 GMT
The biggest single disadvantage of longer cars is larger gaps at curved platforms. They do have some other advantages though - fewer couplers require less maintenance (how does this translate to walk-through cars?), fewer bogies probably mean less track ware - but articulated cars that share bogies have even fewer. However I believe articulated cars are not as stable and tend to sway a bit more compared to a car of the same length but fitted with two conventional bogies. This sway in articulated cars can be reduced by the simple expedient of making them shorter - but doing so increases the number of articulated bogies needed per unit. As a consequence articulation on LU doesn't really bring any overall reduction in the number of wheels per unit as it were. The proposal for articulated cars is based on having cars that are roughly the length of the current bogie centres - somewhere between 10.5m and 11.5m. With this in mind a nominal 12 car articulated trains with 13 bogies would replace an 8-car with 16 bogies. As to track wear, the detailed design of the bogies is far more important than the number.
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Oct 14, 2017 19:15:47 GMT
Khan needs to be replaced with someone that understands railways!😡 I recommend you exercise your democratic right in May 2020. However, neither the current financial situation nor the decisions made by TfL (possibly) as a result of it are 100% the responsibility of any one person in isolation. I think saying more would risk straying into the sort of political discussion that is not allowed on this forum. Yes indeedy!
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 14, 2017 19:20:05 GMT
Khan needs to be replaced with someone that understands railways!😡 I recommend you exercise your democratic right in May 2020. However, neither the current financial situation nor the decisions made by TfL (possibly) as a result of it are 100% the responsibility of any one person in isolation. I think saying more would risk straying into the sort of political discussion that is not allowed on this forum. I think we all have that little Captain Kirk moment every now and again.
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Oct 14, 2017 19:40:07 GMT
I recommend you exercise your democratic right in May 2020. However, neither the current financial situation nor the decisions made by TfL (possibly) as a result of it are 100% the responsibility of any one person in isolation. I think saying more would risk straying into the sort of political discussion that is not allowed on this forum. I think we all have that little Captain Kirk moment every now and again. It's life Jim, but not as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 14, 2017 21:09:13 GMT
Thanks DStock7080 That information rather confirms where the plan for extra trains is headed. With the World Class Capacity team also seemingly being reassigned, it demonstrates that the need to tighten the TFL purse strings goes beyond just deferring(abandoning) the additional trains idea. A few years from now, hindsight (and passenger data) will doubtless show just how astute this decision was. I am intrigued to know what lies beneath those bold statements about how the Elizabeth Line will impact travel patterns. I vaguely recall earlier articles suggested that Crossrail (aka Elizabeth) would be overloaded almost as soon as it opens, and not so attractive for existing Jubilee passengers after all. It is interesting they choose to single out eastbound passengers? Assuming we are talking about daily flows that only equates to diverting the passenger equivalent of 10 full jubilee trains across the entire day - which is far less than the potential daily carrying capacity of the abandoned "deferred" additional train order. Hence I hope someone in TFL towers is working on plan "b, c, d...", as the train manufacturers will presumably focus all their attention on preparing tenders for the new deep level stock, and won't want the current manufacturing jigs jamming up valuable production line space (unless they are suitably incentivised). So once the current tenders for extra trains expire, the potential for a follow-on order for the current train design probably goes too. Hey Ho. Its done now and just like MLX, its probably time to close this thread too and move on. I agree with you that this is abandonment of the extra trains project not "pausing". I strongly suspect it will be seen, within 8-12 years, as an utterly stupid decision but there you go. TfL are clearly taking the view that London's economy is on the slide (they as good as said this to the Assembly Budget Cttee recently) and therefore feel that patronage will slump, possibly badly, at some point soon. On that basis they know they can postpone this work and instead tinker round the edges. One hopes that some extremely pointed questions are asked about this decision because NLU2 was being looked at well over 5 years ago. I read the briefing papers on it and was doing some work on the implications for the Alstom contract. Now that means some level of resource in LU has been working on this stuff for half a decade to the point where a procurement process was initiated and undertaken. I imagine something similar applies to the Jubilee Line since people have been moaning since before the signalling upgrade was completed about Tube Lines' decision to not buy more trains at that point in time. So that's internal work for half a decade on that. I assume that multi disciplinary teams have been working in more recent times and that time will have been chargeable to a project funding allocation as LU tends to capitalise this work in its books when the end result is a step change in asset capability. How many millions have been spent to no great output? I am also deeply sceptical about this "sudden" revelation about Crossrail's network impact. While I know, as I've heard it said, that TfL have been reviewing how they expect the network to be affected by all sorts of factors including Crossrail I don't see how you "suddenly" come to a realisation that Crossrail may cause some diversion of trips away from the Jubilee Line. The same effect has been factored into DLR patronage and revenue forecasts for two business plan rounds (!) so not exactly a shock. As you rightly say whatever happened to "Crossrail will be full almost as soon as it opens"? Even if you allow for a bit of lobbying related hyperbole at the time it's still a rather daft thing to allow your previous Commissioner to say and then stand by when a year on you're saying something a bit different that doesn't really hold together. It's all a bit "convenient" in terms of explaining away a slight presentational problem you have. Still cancelling the Northern Line NLU2 allows them to stoke up the "horror stories" on the Morden branch to try to bolster the case for Crossrail 2. I hope TfL were clear in their bidding documentation that they are not paying bidders' costs for taking part in the "extra trains" procurement. If not they'll be getting claims for bidding costs and I expect if it was ruled some firms will not be happy to have had millions of pounds wasted. It may sour their view about the "Deep Tube" replacement stock as anyone with half a functioning brain will be asking themselves "is TfL really serious about buying new trains? Do they have the money for the Picc Line fleet replacement? Are we going to end up in this mess again?" I accept the Deep Tube programme is potentially enormous and possibly lucrative for any supplier but the market really hates being mucked around.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 15, 2017 8:02:10 GMT
I think we all have that little Captain Kirk moment every now and again. It's life Jim, but not as we know it. That transport project you were looking forwards to? It has been:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 9:38:04 GMT
Will Four evenly spaced wider Single Leaf Doors per car be employed on the New Tube for London perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 15, 2017 9:59:20 GMT
Will Four evenly spaced wider Single Leaf Doors per car be employed on the New Tube for London perhaps? Depending on car length, likely to be two or three. (Deep Tube Upgrade programme)
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 15, 2017 10:26:02 GMT
Will Four evenly spaced wider Single Leaf Doors per car be employed on the New Tube for London perhaps? So with orders for more of the current design pretty much dead, I guess it now becomes legitimate to discuss the merits of new deep tube NDT stock in this thread as it presumably becomes the prime candidate for additional capacity of these lines or indeed wholesale replacement and probably some intra line shuffling to eek out whatever residual value may be available in stock withdrawn from which ever line gets NDT first .. I really hope LUL have learned the costly lessons of the past, and completely rule out any proposal for single leaf doors. As we seem to be moving towards ever more intense timetabling, to extract maximum capacity from the current lines, the impact on dwell time of single leaf doors would be increasingly serious. Fundamentally the opening for entry/exit becomes available earlier with double doors - likewise closing time is shorter for the same size opening and those seconds really count, as they expensively found on the 83 stock. So assuming LUL/train manufacturers are not planning to try out some radically different door mechanism (linear motors springs to mind) potentially capable of ultra fast opening I think single doors would be a retrograde step - even if would be reminiscent of a "turbo-lift" from Star Trek.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 15, 2017 17:33:37 GMT
Single leaf doors have been discredited. IIRC one of the benefits touted of articulated trains was the move towards double doors only.
Wonder if it would be better for the 95ts to go to the Pic and the NTfL be brought in on the Northern instead. Would allow a larger fleet on both without capital expenditure on an obsolete design. Point being, perhaps now is a good time to take stock (pun apologies) of current fleets size compared to future predicted requirements.
The gamble in cancelling enhancement to the Northern and Jub is that XR2 is dumped in the next budget (or 'paused'); should this be the case it would become imperative to maximise the throughput of all other transport methods along similar corridors...
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 15, 2017 18:32:13 GMT
Single leaf doors have been discredited. IIRC one of the benefits touted of articulated trains was the move towards double doors only. Wonder if it would be better for the 95ts to go to the Pic and the NTfL be brought in on the Northern instead. Would allow a larger fleet on both without capital expenditure on an obsolete design. Point being, perhaps now is a good time to take stock (pun apologies) of current fleets size compared to future predicted requirements. The gamble in cancelling enhancement to the Northern and Jub is that XR2 is dumped in the next budget (or 'paused'); should this be the case it would become imperative to maximise the throughput of all other transport methods along similar corridors... Can anyone remember who the barmpot was and the reason for having single leaf doors on the D stock?
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Oct 15, 2017 18:48:39 GMT
Can anyone remember who the barmpot was and the reason for having single leaf doors on the D stock? Can't remember who, but the reason was that they were being introduced at a time when ridership was at a low level and appeared rather stagnant if not in decline, so they reasoned that single leaf doors would provide ample capacity, but would mean lower maintenance requirements
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 19:00:17 GMT
The 1983 stock also had single leaf doors.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 15, 2017 20:08:23 GMT
D stock and 1983 stock were in many ways just different size versions of the same stock.
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Oct 15, 2017 20:45:34 GMT
Wonder if it would be better for the 95ts to go to the Pic and the NTfL be brought in on the Northern instead. Would allow a larger fleet on both without capital expenditure on an obsolete design. Point being, perhaps now is a good time to take stock (pun apologies) of current fleets size compared to future predicted requirements. Will they fit?
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Oct 15, 2017 21:21:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Oct 15, 2017 22:34:12 GMT
Wonder if it would be better for the 95ts to go to the Pic and the NTfL be brought in on the Northern instead. Would allow a larger fleet on both without capital expenditure on an obsolete design. Point being, perhaps now is a good time to take stock (pun apologies) of current fleets size compared to future predicted requirements. Will they fit? They can physically fit down the tunnels as they've made it to South Ealing before, although I am not sure if there were any speed restrictions that had to be put in place for it to prevent it from clouting the tunnel wall at certain locations.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 16, 2017 5:37:06 GMT
LU has looked several times at moving the trains to the Picc. It is unusually complicated. Even from day 1, before movimg the trains.....the OPOCCTV trackside kit and the CSDE/announcement trigger beacons (now decommissioned) would have to be fitted. Then the PIS would need to be reprogrammed. None of this is impossible. Now, of course, there is the ATO system to fit. Also not impossible. The third complicating factor is that thd trains are not owned by LU and are maintained by Alstom. Both owner and maintainer need to be involved in any decision to move the trains. All three factors cost, and reduce LU's flexibility or ability to source on the open market, and has repeatedly been discounted. I would be very surprised if issue were to be looked at again.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 16, 2017 7:13:25 GMT
When does the maintenance contract expire?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 16, 2017 8:57:59 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 16, 2017 10:11:02 GMT
So 2027 or 2033. Given that in that instance they had to make a decision to renew or not renew by 30 September 2015, it would make sense that they would need to make the same decision again by the end of September 2025 - i.e. in 8 years time or 16 months into the mayor term after next.
|
|