|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 2, 2008 21:31:59 GMT
Maybe an add on order of the 09stock could be made? For the record I like the 92ts, I hope a solution can be reached with their demise! Can't do that - the 09 stock are too big for the Central's tunnels. Also, the driving position is on the wrong side, and therefore would be out of allignment for the few colour light signals on the line. in the scheme of things, these would be trivial to fix
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 26, 2008 21:16:56 GMT
don't believe everything you read in Modern Railways. In May they suggested the contract was about to be cancelled!!!!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 25, 2008 16:30:35 GMT
It seems extraordinary, but typical of the polititians we get in this country (with equal poke as all political parties) that a project whose true contribution won't be measured for a generation or so is influenced by the election of a different political party in London.
Crossrail won't open 'till after the mayor who replaces the mayor who replaces Boris is elected in 2016!
Of course it might be nothing to do with Gordon or Boris, and everything to do with journalists.
I have seen it written "when did you last see a newspaper article, about something you know about, that was accurate? Why then do you believe anything else they print?"
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 24, 2008 7:15:50 GMT
Paul Moss' book 'Underground movement' suggests that the 73ts was the first stock with top hung doors. I'd be suprised if the 72mk2 stock differed from the previous 67/72mk1 stocks-then again-you should believe everything you read! Paul Moss' book is very good, but this detail is incorrect - I saw them shortly after delivery! Once the top hung design was properly sorted out, they were/are very reliable. So much so that when the 3 mark one '72's were transferred to the Bakerloo, the conventional door arrangement was about 3 times less reliable than the mark two's. Over the last two or three years, the mark oneshave been converted to something like the mark two arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 16, 2008 21:07:13 GMT
Some feedback to a number of threads - sorry not individually credited!
1) the first tube trains with top hung doors were 1972 mk 2. The idea was that it would allow a bottom track less prone to be gummed up with AAA batteries and the like. ALL current tube stock and '09 stock have under seat door operators. '73 is unique in that two doors in adjacent doorways share the same door engine.
2) Our simulators don't simulate motion and therefore don't "feel" right. What I mean by motion is this. A motion simulator uses actuators like hydraulic jacks to cause the simulator to move forward, backward and up and dow, and allow tilt. This provides the sensation of acceleration, braking and track roughness. Apart from the ancient '59ts sumulator which was scrapped a long time ago, none of LU's simulators use motion. This is not a problem for the purposes for which they're used.
3) I don't drive trains very often and don't drive them at all on LU, but the '09ts is, in my view very nice to drive - as good as any metro train I've driven. I drive the Central line simulator a day or two after the '09ts and this just confirmed my view of non-motion simulators.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 5, 2008 13:54:56 GMT
For info, AC motors are incredibly reliable - there's hardley anything to go wrong! Out of about 2500 AC motors on the railway, there's been only one failure I know of in just under 10 years. Northern line has had problems with the AC inverters, but this hasn't afflicted the '96 stock. Moreover the cause is now understood and thus can be and will be fixed.
Also, it is only in the last 3-4 years that '73 stock has been giving decent reliability.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 30, 2008 19:25:22 GMT
As far as I know the middle roads will have an escalator shaft going straight through them to the Crossrail platform and hence the outer roads will be the only roads there. Not sure about crossovers.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 27, 2008 19:59:28 GMT
In case anyone sees May Modern Railways there's a short section on page 6 with out of date info about S stock. It's wrong and production is full steam (well, electricity) ahead!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 23, 2008 21:11:05 GMT
the motors were, from memory, recovered from CO and CP stock
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 23, 2008 17:19:51 GMT
They were less than reliable, but the fatal flaw was that their haulage capacity was smaller than the old locos
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 20, 2008 14:24:42 GMT
whether or not you like the principle of telling the potential bidders the price range or not, these are the rules that have to be worked to in EU public procurement! Of course one could quote a grossly incorrect price, but that can lead to a challenge from unsuccessful bidders later!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 18, 2008 17:01:56 GMT
what are the opinions about the prototype? I think it's kept its character without standing out like a sore thumb
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 18, 2008 7:21:59 GMT
I'm sure this won't be the last post but I'll add that 92 tube stock doesn't have a flag switch, but does have field weakening. The current in the armatures (the rotating part of the motor for the non tekkies!) is controlled by thyristor current controllers (chopper) - there are teo of these per car - and the current in the fields (the static part) of all 8 motors on a 2-car is controlled by another chopper. At low speed the field current will be held at the maximun allowed and the armature current will be steadily increased to accelerate the train without over accelerating. Once full voltage is applied to the armatures, the field current will be steadily reduced until the required speed has been achieved.
(this, believe it or not is a very simplified description)
thus you might describe 92ts as having infionitely variable field weakening.
There is no such concept for AC motors!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Apr 16, 2008 4:51:01 GMT
TheOneKea has basically got it right except for one thing: the train doesn't accelerate more slowly as a result of weak field. Accelerating more slowly with the flag switch up is/was a feature of A stock but on this, it controls two features.
When the line was electrified to Amersham the power supply was installed on a bit of a shoestring budget and the powers that be of the time wanted to limit the current drawn from the supply but also to have higher speeds.
What they did was to link the flag switch to the rate switch so that with weak field enabled, the train could only accelerate in rate 1. Acceleration on the camshaft (RPA) is carried out in full field and then weak field is introduced and has the effect of an extra notch on the acceleration process.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 2, 2008 7:32:00 GMT
Dear All
the S stock project was started with 6, 7, and 8 car trains in mind, so we could have 8-car trains if they were right for the line. I still remember the time when 8-car trains on the District wer abolished. This had the advantage of making all trains the same and eliminating the problems of coupling/uncoupling. Also the nightmares of having customers boading/alighting on somewhat less than optimal (understatement) platform ends was avoided. Seven car is altogether a better fit than 8. But, I guess we might say "never say never" to 8-car Districts - but there are NO plans nor even gleams in peoples' eyes.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 22, 2008 22:24:03 GMT
No MLIC's will be required, nor coupling switches - at least not in the middle of the train as a blow on the auto-coupler won't be possible as they aren't there. There will be ways of overcoming a main line burst - but I can't say what they are as I don't have that detail to hand - will try and find out
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 22, 2008 14:52:23 GMT
In reply to all the people who are interested in this:
1) the easy bit: they are not single ended units as such. There are no units - all the trains will be complete trains - either 7 or 8 cars and can only be split by disconnecting semi-pemanent couplings.
2) the 1200mm wide first set of double doors is a much more complex story and really does show how all train design is a series of compromises. Plan A was for all doors to be the same width and for cab doors to be plug doors. This was at the stage when all the interior compromises were worked out. When the decision was made to lower the train floor, the plug door had to go as there was a risk it could hit a platform when open. Thus the cab door became a sliding door. The cab door and the first sliding door would compete for the same space when open. By making the first double door smaller it minimised the impact on the overall architecture of the carbody design. It looks odd in the drawings; I'm confident it will not be noticed "in the metal".
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 21, 2008 16:49:59 GMT
Benedict - the answer to your question is that yes, the first set of double doors on a Driving Motor of S stock are narrower than all the rest
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 30, 2008 18:58:55 GMT
Sorry PRJB - unless something has changed in the last couple of months - 09ts is Vapor doors
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 29, 2008 21:17:58 GMT
"In the case of the doors, there was a working rig and all the relevant features were operational. "
In the time honoured way of FAI, I trust you acted as a human guinea pig to test the safety features
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 25, 2008 23:12:30 GMT
Chaps:
A motoring analogy:
All those who drive in towns with manual cars do lots of gear changing; how many right handers chose left hand drive cars so as to get a right hand gear lever? Perhaps not a good analogy, but ......
I am not a train operator, so can't speak from experience of driving all day. But I am left handed and I have to do all sorts of things with my right hand because of the right handed world we live in. I have driven all sorts of trains all over the world and none have given me any difficulty; all were right handed except one - a 59 tube stock which I would argue is left handed - the critical task was braking - done by the left hand.
When you all see the S stock cab I believe you'll see the logic of the left handed controller in the contect of the overall design that prjb has championed on your behalf.
You never know, we might see the controversy of this issue cause this thread to beat even the mammoth D stock Refurb thread
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Nov 11, 2007 16:53:32 GMT
Sunroofs are so............... '90's. Air con is all the rage.
And instead of sat-nav, we've decided to automate driving instead so trains find their own way!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Nov 9, 2007 19:33:10 GMT
Everyone who reads this forum will need to give prjb the best possible support in this courageous mission. Seat comfort is a very personal thing and for 100 people sitting in the seat, he's get at least 150 different opinions.
I tried the Central line simulator yesterday and thought the seat was awful, but my colleague said it was nothing to do with the seat; my shape was the problem!!!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 25, 2007 20:35:35 GMT
Personally, I regard A stock as having 2.5 and 1.5 seats - ie 2+1 and two cheeks!
in contrast D stock is 2+2. Wait for the mock up. You won't be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jul 27, 2007 7:21:47 GMT
The Space Train was LU's version of a car manufacturer's concept car. All the ideas rolled up into one. Some were good, some were interesting ideas at the time that have since spawned other ideas.
In parallel with space train other ideas were being developed including the train of cars with a single axle each. This axle was mounted under the centre of each car like a caravan. Stability was provided by a mechanical or hydraulic linkage between cars. Another concept that served to remind everyone that in general bogies are good things!
None of these were or are destined to go into production.
Oh, btw, sloping fronts look good on models and artists impressions, but usually designers get a reality check when a 132m long train is required to fit in a 133m long siding!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jul 7, 2007 17:51:59 GMT
I have seen the NY cars in their museum. They are articulated (one bogie shared between two cars), but the gangway is very narrow.
MTR cars were produced at about the same time as D stock. MTR was a new network and their curves are very easy and thus their gangway could be quite compact. The tighter the curves a train has to negotiate, the longer, and more flexible a gangway has to be - look at a London bendy-bus. producing a gangway on a tube train is not impossible but would be a challenge bigger than has been faced by anyone before. LU hasn't bought any of the sub-surface trains since D stock, so S stock is the first low risk opportunity.
Gangway suppliers now have much more experience than they did in 1978 and so the time might, perhaps, be right to look at tube stock
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 9, 2007 20:31:18 GMT
When is the real mock-up due?
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 12, 2007 20:34:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 19, 2007 5:11:42 GMT
Subject to it being practically possible and not costing too many king's ransoms(!), even Baker St 6-car platforms will be extended.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 2, 2007 16:36:34 GMT
The number of platforms that have to be lengthened are small compared with the benefit of having all the trains the same size on the south of the circle, reducing the differential in length between H&C/Circle and Met's and increasing the capacity of ALL H&S and Circle trains by over 20%. There are only 5 stations that are difficult to lengthen. although it's many milions of £, the cost is tiny compared with the cost of a new line
|
|