When I was on the District line westbound platform at Victoria last Thursday (around 1:00pm), I noticed (as I have many times in the past) a message: "If no Ealing Broadway service is shown, take the next Richmond or Wimbledon service and change at Earl's Court".
I'd never thought about it before, but I thought then. "Where are they expecting a District Line service to Ealing Broadway to materialise for if it has not passed through Victoria?"
I can only see one Edgware Road to Ealing movement at the very end of the day, and yet this is a message I have seen on many occasions.
ALL trains are 'articulated' in some way or another, assuming that they consist of more than one vehicle. The TYPE of 'articulation' is the point here. As far as passenger rolling stock is concerned, 'articulation' refers to the mounting of the ends of two underframes on a shared bogie. This is what is meant by 'articulated', and to use the word for any other form of 'articulation' without specifying that fact can only lead to confusion. So it's best not to.
That's nonsense. You've got it back to front.
It will only cause confusion if people insist on arguing that black is white - i.e. that a train is not articulated.
It might be the case that a certain particular subgroup of people have made a habit of using a word with a well known, defined, meaning in a specific and non conforming way, but that does not entitle them to bludgeon everyone else into using it that way.
It is for people who are using a word contrary to its accepted definition to avoid that usage outside their subgroup, not for the rest of the world to conform to their idiomatic usage.
(Of course, if the powers that be want to define this forum as a technical engineering forum, that is their prerogative, and in that instance there is a case to be made for restricted, idiomatic, usage. However, as the vast majority of members are not railway engineers, that would be a very odd move).
Could a mod perhaps split this rather ridiculous discussion and bung it somewhere else?
I can pretty much guarantee that if someone asked you how you were getting from A to B and you answered "coach", they would be 100% confident that you meant you were travelling in a road going coach.
However, it has certainly been the case that people refer to train carriages as 'railway (or train) coaches' (or possibly just 'coach' if the context made it absolutely clear [e.g. third coach from the barrier]).
Conversely, if someone asked you how you were getting from A to B and you answered "car", they would be 100% confident that you meant you were travelling in a private road going vehicle.
The dictionary definition is "having joints" (as in an articulated skeleton). In that sense any vehicle carried on bogies is articulated.
However, in a railway (or road) context the term has a more specific meaning, relating to vehicles in which one or more wheelsets carry part of the weight of two adjacent bodies. Thus an articulated lorry, where part of the weight of the trailer is taken by the tractor unit. The only trains articulated in that sense operating in the UK are the Eurostar class 373 units and (if they count as trains) the DLR and Tyne & Wear units (class 994). Most trams are also articulated.
The confusion appears to have arisen because of the similarity in internal appearance between the typical articulated bus (which is, beneath the skin, similar to an articulated lorry) and trains such as the S stock and class 378s.
No, I think the confusion arises in the minds of people who are using a 'back construction' and, because lorries and buses that are articulated (almost) always have a trailer sharing wheels with the cab, think that this is a necessary condition for articulation.
It is not.
To be articulated something merely needs a moveable joint.
But it is not full-width gangways which make a bus articulated.
I'm sat on a train currently en route home. After leaving Seven Kings our car has been entered by a woman in broken English calling out "homeless & pregnant" whilst rattling around some coins in a cup.
Seems that TfL Rail is now being targeted by begging !
Anyone else notice other lines getting the same by welcome visitors in the form of organised gangs recently?
I honestly thought you were talking about an actual 'car' rather than a train car, I assumed you meant you exited Seven Kings Station and I was just picturing a woman sat in the back of your car asking for money
There's a very good reason why a rail passenger saloon is called (by normal people) a 'carriage', and a road going small passenger vehicle a 'car': it avoids confusion such as that.
It's a stupid affectation of LU to continue to insist on calling railway carriages 'cars'.
Q: What is a car? A: It's a car
Q: What is a railway carriage? A: It is a railway carriage
There are (very generally speaking) two types of articulation - that used by the current DLR stock where there is a bogie beneath the articulation point, and that used by the S stock where the articulation is between two bogies.
There seems to be some confusion here: S-stock is not articulated.
Articulated simply means "having a joint"; all underground passenger stock is articulated.
You may be confused by the fact that all (as far as I know) articulated lorries use a common set of wheels for the tractor and the front of the (first) trailer, but 'articulation, there, applies to the flexible join between the tractor and the trailer, not the way that join is achieved.
according to this a crush loaded S stock can carry 1524 passengers
Aren't you double-counting the tip-up seats? The crush standing capacity is, surely, with those seats folded up.
What it your evidence for saying that?
I have never ever seen, on any underground stock that uses tip up seats, anyone suggest that people should stand up and let the seat tip up, to increase capacity.
As anyone who actually uses the underground will tell you, use is made of the entire seating capacity long before you get to crush level.
It is, of course, conceivable that, during crush loading, a vacated tip up seat will not be re-used, although that is by no means a given (depending, I would imagine, on how many stops the person standing against the seat has to travel).
In reality, though, it would depend on how the manufacturer (or end user) chooses to measure capacity, but without specific evidence to the contrary I can see no reason to just assume that tip up seats are not considered to be used during crush loading.
This is an unusual (and, I have to say, rather difficult) position in which to find oneself.
Fortunately, thanks to the work done on the proof of conformal invariance of percolation and the planar Ising model in statistical physics, for which Stanislav Smirnov won the Field's Medal in Hyderbad, India, in 2010, it's now definitively proven that Ladbroke Grove is a fully valid play here.
I know you can Google the answer, but that's not the point.
The fun comes from thinking, "Oh, I know that, where does it come from ...".
It's true, I suppose that anyone whop wanted to could ruin the thread by just researching the answer and posting it, but the purpose of the thread wasn't to provide a vehicle for people to impress others.