|
Post by snoggle on May 8, 2015 19:12:14 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on May 8, 2015 21:23:59 GMT
Interesting. I think any single-unit train is going to require some pretty flexible bellows, as not only are there very sharp horizontal curves to be negotiated there are some significant changes in vertical curvature - look at a train headed eastbound from Poplar towards Canning Town to see a good example of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on May 9, 2015 1:53:13 GMT
Yet again transverse seating to be lost.
The views from the DLR are spectacular and these seats fill up first.
More doors likely to mean more standing.
|
|
|
Post by flippyff on May 9, 2015 20:54:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by astockfan101 on May 10, 2015 13:15:02 GMT
Fixed formation then at a few stations it would have to use selective door opening again unless they make the platforms longer witch at some of them they should.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on May 10, 2015 21:52:22 GMT
I don't know of any issues with SDO on the DLR at present, so as long as there are no doorways part on and part off the platform there shouldn't be a problem.
Of all the stations where SDO is used, I think only Cutty Sark would have much need of the added door capacity, and that will be the most expensive station (by a massive amount) to alter given that it would require expansion of tunnels under a world heritage site.
Elverson Road could probably be done if there was a need, but I think it's one of the quietest stations on the network and so the cost benefit just doesn't stack up.
Gallions Reach isn't worth spending the money on at this point as the station will likely need to be rebuilt in some way if it becomes a junction station for a Dagenham branch.
Royal Albert is the one I know least about, but I get the impression that it's quite a peak flow station and so the costs of building platform extensions on the very elevated site are not worthwhile most of the day.
|
|
|
Post by flippyff on May 12, 2015 6:13:04 GMT
Does this "The train should be have the option to either automatically close the doors in ATO mode or allow the Passenger Service Agent to initiate door closure in ATO mode," suggest 'cold weather door closing' as per the 378s on London Overground or pushing the train captains even further towards a ticket checking only role?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on May 12, 2015 13:44:06 GMT
From reading something (Ian Visits?) the suggestion is that it would allow for unattended train operation, although there are no current plans to use that other than in an emergency.
|
|
|
Post by davidp on May 13, 2015 19:49:48 GMT
Yet again transverse seating to be lost. The views from the DLR are spectacular and these seats fill up first. More doors likely to mean more standing. Traverse seating will certainly be lost from most of the train but presumably it must be possible for these new trains to be driven from the Lead Driving Position and therefore the first set of seats would still have to be traverse. And perhaps that would imply that the second row of traverse seats would survive as well? Regards All David
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 6:29:21 GMT
How about making them bi-model and then linking the Croydon Tramlink System to the DLR?
XF
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on May 16, 2015 7:59:13 GMT
How about making them bi-model and then linking the Croydon Tramlink System to the DLR? XF Vehicle height, DLR has platforms and Tramlink doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 8:33:18 GMT
How about making them bi-model and then linking the Croydon Tramlink System to the DLR? XF Vehicle height, DLR has platforms and Tramlink doesn't. This issue is common on the USA with either steps that move to between street and platform level as seen on the MUNI in SF however these systems can be unreliable! XF
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on May 16, 2015 10:36:47 GMT
Vehicle height, DLR has platforms and Tramlink doesn't. This issue is common on the USA with either steps that move to between street and platform level as seen on the MUNI in SF however these systems can be unreliable! XF And would delay highly intensive services so not really an option.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on May 16, 2015 11:44:35 GMT
They also couldn't have level access to both sets of platforms unless you're moving the whole floor - I suspect it could be cheaper (and certainly more reliable) to build dual height platforms. You also have an incompatibility of power supplies between Tramlink and DLR, any dual purpose vehicle would need both pantographs and retractable and isolatable pickup shoes for the bottom-contact third rail. You'd need a dedicated driving position, as the current ones do not meet the requirements for tram vehicles (See Paragraphs 290-296 on PDF page 58 of the regulations)
|
|