class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on May 17, 2017 16:22:19 GMT
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? |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on May 17, 2017 16:35:12 GMT
Fine.
ALL trains are 'articulated', so we need another word for Gresley-type articulation.
Now, SOME trains don't run on rails, so we need another word for rail-borne trains.
Some coaches are drawn by horses...
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on May 17, 2017 16:43:07 GMT
Fine. ALL trains are 'articulated', so we need another word for Gresley-type articulation. Shared bogie articulation seems to do the job very well. And when the forum starts including these things in common discussion it may be a good idea to come up with some specific terms for them - e.g. Road Train Horse Drawn Carriage until then ... |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on May 17, 2017 16:57:19 GMT
Until then, we'll continue to use the ordinary words for the things WE all undertand, but you seemingly don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on May 17, 2017 17:19:23 GMT
The title of this thread, in case you'd all forgotten, <<was>> 'Metropolitan Line Extension Ideas from Aldgate' <<but is now 'DLR rolling stock configurations'>>. I don't wish to post a second reminder. Back on topic or I'll lock it.
rincew1nd: minor alterations inside guillemets consequential of thread splitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 19, 2017 9:26:25 GMT
If people want to discuss the DLR procurement further, can I suggest they go to this article on London reconnections? www.londonreconnections.com/2017/bakerloo-deja-vu-buying-new-trains-for-the-dlr/But extending the Met from Aldgate seems to be a non-starter - the existing track layout at the Minories triangle can't take any more trains, so if the Met goes further something else would have to give, and there is simply not the space underneath (let alone above) to create the necessary grade separation for a new branch. Clearly the planners thought so too, because when it was decided to build a new tunnelled line heading into the City from the east, it was extended beyond the Liverpool Street area into central London in a separate tunnel rather than attempting to plug it in to the existing congested SSL network at Aldgate. It's called Crossrail. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on May 23, 2017 21:01:35 GMT
The latest TfL Press Release (17th May) suggests that they are only replacing 33 of the oldest trains and building 10 more for growth.
Fleet is currently
B90: (23) 1991–present
B92: (47) 1993–present
B2K: (24) 2001–present
B07: (55) 2008–present
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on May 23, 2017 21:23:48 GMT
The latest TfL Press Release (17th May) suggests that they are only replacing 33 of the oldest trains and building 10 more for growth. Fleet is currently B90: (23) 1991–present B92: (47) 1993–present B2K: (24) 2001–present B07: (55) 2008–present is the press release in question. I think that you are misreading it however. From the press release: As in 33 of the new trains will be replacements for the old trains, but not necessarily like for like. Whilst it doesn't state it in the press release, all of the rumours suggest that one new train will be equivalent to 3 existing trains, and doing a spot of maths: (23+47+24)/3 = 31.33 trains which seems about right. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 24, 2017 5:54:17 GMT
Whilst it doesn't state it in the press release, all of the rumours suggest that one new train will be equivalent to 3 existing trains, It is implicit in the press release: The existing units are 28m long (28.8m over couplers) so three of them coupled are just short of 87m. Thus 33 new 87m units can replace 99 28m ones. The B90/92/2000 stock add up to 94 units. 33 x 3 > 94, the discrepancy probably being maintenance overhead - because you can split a train made of three units should a fault develop in part of it, but not if the train is a single unit. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on May 24, 2017 9:03:24 GMT
Not all trains are made up of 3 units.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 24, 2017 9:17:28 GMT
Not all trains are made up of 3 units. Indeed not, but if the new units are indivisible 87m units, they can't be used to make trains equivalent to the current two-unit formations. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on May 25, 2017 2:26:08 GMT
The new design will result in there still being two incompatible fleets (not that coupling will be important with the new stock); one entirely walk through and one not.
One wonders, if sufficient custom occurs over the next decade, whether the B07 stock will eventually become an operational liability, not being walk through and having a lower overall capacity - possibly leading given the right set of circumstances to a shorter than anticipated life.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 25, 2017 5:45:00 GMT
By the time the proposed new trains are currently planned to all be in service (2024) the B07 stock will be 17 years old - the same age the B2000 stock is now, so if procurement of their replacements were to start then, they would not have a service life much shorter than the B2000s. And unlike Tube stock, redundant but not life-expired DLR stock seems to have a market elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on May 25, 2017 10:01:09 GMT
by the sounds of it, i would take a guess that the priority would be to get rid of the B90/B92 stock and have these replaced by the new stock, the B07 will most likely stay in service for longer, so what about the B2k, they will be around 23 years old at that point, would tfl replace all of these or keep some spares?
|
|
