Possible new trains?

Just when I thought modern trains couldn't get any uglier...

"X'Trapolis" - they can't even spell correctly.

I can just imagine the marketing types that came up with that name.

Why??

I like them, a nice and fresh design. By the way, having a streamlined nose makes perfect sense considering these trains will be expected to reach 160 KM/h after all.

The Financial Times has some background on some of the design choices:

My impression from the article was that the fronts are combined streamlining and crumple zones.

I saw this article published in the latest digital issue of the Railway Herald.

If by fact the design of the bogies is more efficient, cost-effective, weight reducing (which leads to better performance) than "user opinion" is irrelevant.

At the end of the day when a train enters a platform about 2 in 100 people will actually "care" and pay attention to the mechanical side of the train. 5 in 100 people will "care" about where the doors are and 10 in 100 people will actually "care" about the interior design of the stock.

If the train is a step forward in engineering which gives many benefits than it should be praised for the "effort" in making it so.

I think the design is quite interesting although most of the people on this forum do enjoy quite a good old rant, very quick to point out the negatives.

To be quite honest, I just wish the rail industry would stick with trains (and other technology such as signalling) that have a tried, tested and trusted record of reliability instead of taking leaps with "radical" new designs that lead us to the inevitable lengthy "teething troubles" - which eventually necessisate endless line-closures to put right what should have been right from the start had ambition not exceeded practicality.

Such as steam trains?

Short car, wider bodied trains are already tried and tested.

I have to say thats very short sighted of you. The main reason new trains designs are being bidded for is the fact no current train does whats needed. Using Thameslink as an example of here as I work there. The current design of train cannot simply cope with the amount of people using the stations and trains currently never mind what is projected for 10 years time. The only way to achieve the capacity needed would be to double Thameslink through the Core section and likes likely it would need three tracks each way within 20 years. This would mean a massive buliding plan costing billions of pounds and destroying everything in its path. Historical building would have to be knocked down as their foundations would be in the way along with local roads and stations.

These trains are design to provide a step change in capacity that current stock cannot cope with. That is the real reason for these rather than upgrading for the sake of it. Also note the idea in theory is to provide a standard stock for the next ten years like the current Electrostar and Desiro models do currently.

Also Im sure any people with difficults in travelling, ie wheelchair user will welcome upgrading trains.

Current delivery is along these lines with months of testing. Currently 6-9 months of testing is expected if not more.

2012
*New depot open before the first trains arrive at Three bridges
*Testing "south of London" in 2012 (March-May is suggested)

2013
*First NXEMU in service on TL (original plan had one "full length" train in service for the Olympics)

2014
*New depot at Hornsey open
*Testing "north of London"
*First GN passenger run

2015 - December
*St Pancras - Finbury Park link open

Note as well FCC used a current technology in the 377/5 and they are currently one of the most unrealible train in service (amoung the EMUs) so sometimes sticking with the current techology isn't a great idea either. Sure the passengers using the Jubilee would agree too with the older ex-Central Line signalling always running into problems.