Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2005 17:46:04 GMT
Has the design of the new plastic U stock gotten to the point where coupling technology has been suggested yet? Common sense would say that on U stock, Wedgelocks with compatible pneumatic/electric hookups would be used, to allow the A/C/D (i.e. 'real trains' ) to push them out when they break. Common sense would also say that they would be automatic Wedgelocks, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 15, 2005 19:23:27 GMT
Where on earth do you get 'U' stock from TOK? It's 'G' stock according to other sources. This is because it is the next letter to follow on in the series that fits.. It stands 'for Generic'
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Sept 15, 2005 19:26:17 GMT
According to both Metronet and London Underground it will be S stock...
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Sept 15, 2005 19:29:23 GMT
Is this a new SSL train? If so, What will it replace?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2005 19:36:50 GMT
According to both Metronet and London Underground it will be S stock... S stock? S for what? SSL?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Sept 15, 2005 19:55:17 GMT
Oh hell- can't even agree on a letter for the new stock. What hope on agreeing on a spec (particularly internal layout)?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Sept 15, 2005 20:04:02 GMT
S for SSL. It's been decided for a while just everyone comes up with their own title.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2005 20:17:27 GMT
S for SSL. It's been decided for a while just everyone comes up with their own title. Hmmmm - it hasn't been very well publicised then. Anyway, to get back on topic - are the S stock likely to have automatic Wedgelock couplers?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Sept 15, 2005 20:34:10 GMT
This is a bit like the AWS/TPWS/ATP/ATO thread. Why would things like the couplers change just because it's a new stock?
|
|
|
Post by russe on Sept 15, 2005 23:54:03 GMT
Why would things like the couplers change just because it's a new stock? S'good question. I guess there's a variety of answers to that one: - designers like to design things and earn more money; - the manufacturers wouldn't get development money if an existing proven design was adopted; - the user (LT in this case) has required, if history is anything to go by, more and more complexity in the functions it wants to 'couple', but it also wants reliability as well. Would you want to put all your comms through a coupler, for example, or would you use radio, a medium that is reasonably secure but could be easily disrupted by a competent but malicious party? Russ (who knows nothing about what stage the design has got to)
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Sept 16, 2005 0:53:50 GMT
This is a bit like the AWS/TPWS/ATP/ATO thread. Why would things like the couplers change just because it's a new stock? LU is the only one who uses the "wedgelock" couplers. Using a coupler based on the Scharfenberg seems to be more or less the world standard for multiple unit trains outside the USA today. So, a Scharfenberg variant could well be cheaper to intall and maintain in the long run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2005 5:12:00 GMT
So, a Scharfenberg variant could well be cheaper to intall and maintain in the long run. The only problem there is, that as every other LU train uses Wedgelock couplers, some sort of coupling adaptor along with comms equipment, for through communication would have to be carried on every end cab of A/C and D stock trains whilst these are run with the new stock.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 16, 2005 6:25:15 GMT
Are 'Tightlock' couplers used on NR a variant of the Scharfenberg?
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Sept 16, 2005 10:00:07 GMT
The only problem there is, that as every other LU train uses Wedgelock couplers, some sort of coupling adaptor along with comms equipment, for through communication would have to be carried on every end cab of A/C and D stock trains whilst these are run with the new stock. Sure, this is exactly the way we did things here in Stockholm with the C20 introduction. The first 35 C20 units used also carried a Dellner-to-Westinghouse adapter that you mounted on the C20 coupler, enabling them to couple up to old stock. Likewise, similar adapters are used on the mainline here to enable EMU:s with automatic couplers to couple up to coaches or locomotives using screw-and-link couplings. Since these couplers would only be used for pushouts in emergency situations, you could probably do away with the requrement of having through electrical coupling. Or at least that is my guess. But yes, as you say, it is a decision that has it's drawbacks and has to be analysed carefully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2005 12:39:33 GMT
This is a bit like the AWS/TPWS/ATP/ATO thread. Why would things like the couplers change just because it's a new stock? LU is the only one who uses the "wedgelock" couplers. Using a coupler based on the Scharfenberg seems to be more or less the world standard for multiple unit trains outside the USA today. So, a Scharfenberg variant could well be cheaper to intall and maintain in the long run. Exactly. I don't dispute that the loss of emergency compatibility with existing stock could be a rather large hurdle, but the fact that Wedgelocks appear to be used nowhere except on LU may be used as an excuse to switch coupling technology.
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Sept 16, 2005 17:54:59 GMT
What line(s) will the new stock run on?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Sept 16, 2005 17:58:29 GMT
All SSL lines.
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Sept 17, 2005 10:30:52 GMT
Is this a plan for the future once all the SSL lines stocks are retired?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2005 14:55:40 GMT
Yes.
First to be replaced are the A60/62 on the Metropolitan & East London lines, then C69/77 on District, Circle & H&C, then finally D78 on the District. To be completed, IIRC, around 2017.
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Sept 17, 2005 16:22:44 GMT
So, why are they bothering to refurbish the D stock, only for 12 years service?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2005 16:49:36 GMT
So, why are they bothering to refurbish the D stock, only for 12 years service? The D stock are now getting tatty, they were due for refurbishment 5 years ago, but lack of funds and PPP put things back. They also don't meet modern fire safety standards, as they are full of formica and wood, they are the only stock which must still have a fire extinguisher in every car.
|
|