|
Post by grumpycat on May 6, 2020 19:03:51 GMT
Apologies if this has already been created whats happening with the new stock as im confused as where they were being built either in Germany or here?
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 6, 2020 20:07:54 GMT
Apologies if this has already been created whats happening with the new stock as im confused as where they were being built either in Germany or here? Current May Underground News has story: Piccadilly Line train production is reported on target to start from August 2021, with the first new train into service from Autumn 2024, and all existing trains replaced by mid-2026. Surprisingly, an official visit to the ‘proposed’ Goole site on 10 March 2020 could only have a group photo before a ‘coming soon’ sign. UK production was part of the deal offered by Siemens to gain the contract for potentially 250 trains for four lines. The pre-production trains were always expected from Europe, with perhaps some early production trains. The Programmes and Investment Committee meeting on 5 March 2020 heard only 50% of the rolling stock would be built in Goole, so only around a year of production for the new factory. Funding for follow on orders for other lines currently looks unlikely!
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on May 7, 2020 10:01:59 GMT
After the Piccadilly, what order will they enter service on the other lines
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on May 7, 2020 10:08:50 GMT
At the moment there are no further orders because TfL are skint but the last thing I read was that the Bakerloo will be next and Central/W&C last (by which time I will be retired so I won't have to train on the new stock).
|
|
|
Post by exwatfordian on May 17, 2020 16:12:14 GMT
Would the 1995/96 tube stocks get replacement stock? I suppose the Jubilee line would not have new rolling stock easily as they would require rolling stock to match the platform screen doors. How long were the 1995/96 tube stocks designed to last?
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 17, 2020 16:57:52 GMT
Underground News recently included these details: In preparation for the 2020/25 TfL Business Plan, a 25 year LU fleet plan has been revealed which reflects pre-Covid-19 thinking, but further funding will be essential to cover line upgrades. It is based upon a 40 year life for trains. The Piccadilly line is due first for new trains. Siemens are contracted to provide the new generation trains between 2024 and 2028. The Bakerloo line retains the oldest mainland rail fleet, now 46 years old and travelling 10,000km between failures. A further build of the Siemens trains are expected between 2027 and 2030, subject to the Lewisham extension plans. The Central and Waterloo & City lines then expect a version of the Siemens trains in 2030-36.
The Jubilee line expects the next build of trains in 2036-39, which is beyond the Siemens contract. The current 22 year old fleet only manage 19,000km between failures, less than the similar Northern line trains, and less than the older Piccadilly line trains. They will undergo a Programme Lift and TRIP (perhaps Train Reliability Improvement Programme) from 2020 to 2024, followed by a life extension project from 2024 to 2029. They will then be due for Heavy Overhaul from 2031-34. The Northern line fleet travels 23,000km between failures at 21 years old, and are due life extension works from 2031-34, before replacement stock in 2038-2043.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 17, 2020 17:58:11 GMT
Would the 1995/96 tube stocks get replacement stock? I suppose the Jubilee line would not have new rolling stock easily as they would require rolling stock to match the platform screen doors. How long were the 1995/96 tube stocks designed to last? Is there any reason to think that Siemens have not already been asked to ensure that the door alignment on the new Picaddilly Line rolling stock will also match the existing Jubillee line Platform Edge Doors(PEDS)? Even if not explicitly in the tender terms, clearly doing this is in Siemens own interest as it would make them a very strong contender to replace the Jubillee stock whenever TFL have the funds to proceed. Does anyone know what happened to plans to fit PEDS on the Battersea Extension. Presumably any Northern line PEDS would need to match the existing rolling stock. However if the idea was eventually dumped then it probably makes sense for TFL to try and settle on a definitive door alignment right now, so if (when) the safety people call for PEDs on all regularly over-crowded platforms TFL will have a path to respond. The requirement to match a specific door alignment should not preclude other bidders offering to supply trains going forward.
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on May 17, 2020 18:13:46 GMT
Would the 1995/96 tube stocks get replacement stock? I suppose the Jubilee line would not have new rolling stock easily as they would require rolling stock to match the platform screen doors. How long were the 1995/96 tube stocks designed to last? Is there any reason to think that Siemens have not already been asked to ensure that the door alignment on the new Picaddilly Line rolling stock will also match the existing Jubillee line Platform Edge Doors(PEDS)? Even if not explicitly in the tender terms, clearly doing this is in Siemens own interest as it would make them a very strong contender to replace the Jubillee stock whenever TFL have the funds to proceed. Does anyone know what happened to plans to fit PEDS on the Battersea Extension. Presumably any Northern line PEDS would need to match the existing rolling stock. However if the idea was eventually dumped then it probably makes sense for TFL to try and settle on a definitive door alignment right now, so if (when) the safety people call for PEDs on all regularly over-crowded platforms TFL will have a path to respond. The requirement to match a specific door alignment should not preclude other bidders offering to supply trains going forward. All the mock ups of the new stock that I've seen have two sets of double doors per car rather than the single-double-double-single configuration of current stock See 20 seconds in from the start of this somewhat outdated promo vid from 2014
|
|
|
Post by exwatfordian on May 17, 2020 18:28:59 GMT
All the mock ups of the new stock that I've seen have two sets of double doors per car rather than the single-double-double-single configuration of current stock. See 20 seconds in from the start of this somewhat outdated promo vid from 2014: "Our design vision is for a train that both echoes the best of London's transport heritage and utilities the latest modern technology." Speaking of that, the New Tube for London does bare resemblence to the 1938 tube stock, owing to the windows.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 18, 2020 2:52:10 GMT
Would the 1995/96 tube stocks get replacement stock? I suppose the Jubilee line would not have new rolling stock easily as they would require rolling stock to match the platform screen doors. How long were the 1995/96 tube stocks designed to last? Is there any reason to think that Siemens have not already been asked to ensure that the door alignment on the new Picaddilly Line rolling stock will also match the existing Jubillee line Platform Edge Doors(PEDS)? Even if not explicitly in the tender terms, clearly doing this is in Siemens own interest as it would make them a very strong contender to replace the Jubillee stock whenever TFL have the funds to proceed. Does anyone know what happened to plans to fit PEDS on the Battersea Extension. Presumably any Northern line PEDS would need to match the existing rolling stock. However if the idea was eventually dumped then it probably makes sense for TFL to try and settle on a definitive door alignment right now, so if (when) the safety people call for PEDs on all regularly over-crowded platforms TFL will have a path to respond. The requirement to match a specific door alignment should not preclude other bidders offering to supply trains going forward. To be absolutely clear, the requirement for the Piccadilly, Bakerloo, W & C and Central line trains was for them to have all double doors. This is fundamentally incompatible with the Jubilee platform doors. Getting the specification right for the trains in the current order + options was the objective. It was always known that an all double doors layout was incompatible with the Jubilee PEDs however the train doors were laid out. This is a big challenge for the specifiers of the next Jubilee fleet, and a) it was assumed that Jubilee replacement fleet would retain the current door configuration and b) it was left to the next generation of Tube engineers to see if they could come up with a cunning plan for something different/better.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 18, 2020 22:22:22 GMT
modify the single door sections of the Jubilee PEDs to for double doorways? During the works the Jubilee reverts to terminating at Charing Cross, plus a Canning Town - Stratford shuttle
Works done around Christmas, taking just a fortnight (max) as they progress 24/7 and until then the new trains avoid the subterranean section of the JLE
Simple on paper, but in reality?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,775
|
Post by Chris M on May 19, 2020 0:39:37 GMT
Many months ago I posted an idea for how works could be phased to keep as much of a service going as possible while running two fleets, but if you're working 24/7 with closure you could start by doing North Greenwich island platform first and then run a mix of Canning Town and North Greenwich services. Then do Canary Wharf so you can run a service there, running through the centre platform at North Greenwich. After that I'd do the eastbound at Canada Water. If the signalling allows, you could run a limited through service to there running bi-di on one line west of Canary Wharf crossover, or get creative with trains locked in running shuttles to Canary Wharf or North Greenwich. Next I'd do the eastbound platform at Waterloo, to run a limited service non-stopping Westminster using the trailing crossover at Waterloo. Then do one then the other platform at Westminster (probably westbound first as doubling back at Waterloo is easier than at Green Park - just stay on the train). Next I'd do the the westbound at Waterloo followed by the westbound at London Bridge, using the crossover west of the latter service to run a limited service from the west that far. Followed by the eastbound platform at London Bridge and westbound at Canada Water to allow a through service again, albeit not stopping at Southwark and Bermondsey. As the busier of the two, I'd do Southwark next, then platform 3 at North Greenwich to get full flexibility back there, before finishing at Bermondsey.
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on May 19, 2020 7:33:12 GMT
Or they could just get a new design to replace both the 1995s and 1996s to be delivered 2036-2043 (by which time the design for the New Tube will be over 15 years old) with the doors in the same configuration to avoid any unnecessary expense and faffing around with the PEDs
|
|
|
Post by brigham on May 19, 2020 7:33:33 GMT
I think I would build trains to fit the existing doors, if they aren't a significant cause of platform dwell time.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on May 19, 2020 14:49:04 GMT
I think I would build trains to fit the existing doors, if they aren't a significant cause of platform dwell time. I tend to agree. Also, on the Jubilee line the only station with significantly curved platforms is Finchley Road, so the pressure for shorter articulated shells so as to minimise steps and gaps to the platform should be less and the present carbody layout works fairly well unless one insists on an open gangway walk through train. Rather less so on on the Northern line perhaps. There, train length was lost going to the present 6 car version of this carbody style. Maybe the Northern line would benefit from the New Tube train type.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,775
|
Post by Chris M on May 19, 2020 15:39:47 GMT
Walk through trains would be beneficial on the Jubilee as there are some very uneven loadings at times
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on May 19, 2020 15:40:53 GMT
Are walkthrough carriages not favoured now to maximise space utilisation?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on May 19, 2020 15:42:31 GMT
Walk through trains would be beneficial on the Jubilee as there are some very uneven loadings at times Is that caused by the routes the passengers take to get to the platforms?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,775
|
Post by Chris M on May 19, 2020 15:49:08 GMT
Walk through trains would be beneficial on the Jubilee as there are some very uneven loadings at times Is that caused by the routes the passengers take to get to the platforms? As always it's due to the location of platform entrances and exits.
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on May 19, 2020 16:07:37 GMT
Walk through trains would be beneficial on the Jubilee as there are some very uneven loadings at times Is that caused by the routes the passengers take to get to the platforms? It is but an interesting thing happens at Canary Wharf where there are escalators at various points on the platforms. People form queues at 90 degrees to the door positions in peak hours on the westbound.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewS on May 19, 2020 16:27:44 GMT
Walk through trains would be beneficial on the Jubilee as there are some very uneven loadings at times I've not found it anything like as beneficial on the Met to even out loading as it was expected to be. Once the train is at all busy it's not easy to walk through, and it mostly seems to be used towards the end of the line as numbers thin out, when people walk to the right bit of the train to be opposite the exit as the train nears their stop.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 19, 2020 16:38:49 GMT
Walk through trains would be beneficial on the Jubilee as there are some very uneven loadings at times I've not found it anything like as beneficial on the Met to even out loading as it was expected to be. Once the train is at all busy it's not easy to walk through, and it mostly seems to be used towards the end of the line as numbers thin out, when people walk to the right bit of the train to be opposite the exit as the train nears their stop. Yes I agree, it’s a bit of a gimmick. It’s mainly used by people who want to be near their chosen door to alight, which in fact is worse for dwell times as you end up with a load of people all trying to alight through one door. Worst of all where the platform exit is right at the front, for example at King’s Cross outer rail, where they all try and alight and board via the narrow front door. The 09 stock seems to cope fine without, delivering its 36tph service. Point proven there methinks.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,775
|
Post by Chris M on May 19, 2020 17:24:56 GMT
Is that caused by the routes the passengers take to get to the platforms? It is but an interesting thing happens at Canary Wharf where there are escalators at various points on the platforms. People form queues at 90 degrees to the door positions in peak hours on the westbound. That's because the queues are too long to fit in the normal manner - every bit of platform space is used in the peaks.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 19, 2020 20:25:08 GMT
Many months ago I posted an idea for how works could be phased to keep as much of a service going as possible while running two fleets, but if you're working 24/7 with closure you could start by doing North Greenwich island platform first and then run a mix of Canning Town and North Greenwich services. Then do Canary Wharf so you can run a service there, running through the centre platform at North Greenwich. After that I'd do the eastbound at Canada Water. If the signalling allows, you could run a limited through service to there running bi-di on one line west of Canary Wharf crossover, or get creative with trains locked in running shuttles to Canary Wharf or North Greenwich. Next I'd do the eastbound platform at Waterloo, to run a limited service non-stopping Westminster using the trailing crossover at Waterloo. Then do one then the other platform at Westminster (probably westbound first as doubling back at Waterloo is easier than at Green Park - just stay on the train). Next I'd do the the westbound at Waterloo followed by the westbound at London Bridge, using the crossover west of the latter service to run a limited service from the west that far. Followed by the eastbound platform at London Bridge and westbound at Canada Water to allow a through service again, albeit not stopping at Southwark and Bermondsey. As the busier of the two, I'd do Southwark next, then platform 3 at North Greenwich to get full flexibility back there, before finishing at Bermondsey. I like this solution, Christmas (and summer holidays) are normally quieter times so maybe the reduced train frequency would not be an issue. Of course by then Crossrail will be open (one hopes, said in desperation!!) so the number of passengers on the Jubilee will be a little lower.
Another issue which may be relevant is that at some stage the PEDs might themselves become life expired / in need of major servicing. If done at the same time as a new train project it would possibly create an opportunity for door positioning changes.
|
|
|
Post by will on May 19, 2020 20:37:08 GMT
It is almost certain that the new trains won't have the exact same spacing of doors as the 1996ts so new PEDs will be required for that reason. At the time of new trains the PED's will have come to the end of there life at that time anyway they will likely need replacing for reliability reasons.
Before the new stock is introduced there will have to be a removal of the current PEDs. This is surely the only practical solution. This will lead to a period of no PEDs on platforms while both new and old stock operate until all 96ts trains have departed and all new trains introduced. this will be the point when PED's return to the Line.
The departure of the 1996ts and the introduction of new stock may over a year or more anyway with the average rate of building a train for the tube being one per week. The only practical solution is to operate without PEDs during this time as it will not be possible to use them with two different stocks with different doors at the same time.
The reason for providing PED's was it eliminated the need to provide draft relief shafts and meant the JLE engineers could get away with not chamfering the ends of the running tunnels saving money. As well as the obvious benefit of passenger safety and design of the stations.
The major decision will be in the design of the risk assessment and any legal implications in operating without PED's for a period. The risk assessment will likely say something along the lines of - trains arriving and departing at slower speeds during the changeover to manage drafts and to enable operators to stop short of someone falling, increased staff and police presence in the stations and the fact that the other JLE stations manage without them (as does the rest of the tube) so can the JLE underground stations for a period provided appropriate safety measures are taken.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 20, 2020 4:30:51 GMT
Would the 1995/96 tube stocks get replacement stock? I suppose the Jubilee line would not have new rolling stock easily as they would require rolling stock to match the platform screen doors. How long were the 1995/96 tube stocks designed to last? ….. Does anyone know what happened to plans to fit PEDS on the Battersea Extension. ….. Battersea branch platforms will be spacious and demand slow to build, so no case for PEDs on opening, but they are designed to accommodate PEDs when needed, and would suit the trains of that time. Same applies to new Bank platform.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 20, 2020 4:38:46 GMT
S8 didn't fit, being 2 metres longer than A stock. Shortening the S stock design to A stock length would have only required about 40mm narrower stand-back areas at each side of doorways. But LU decided the future should not be limited by the past, and the cost of lengthening platforms and signalling was worth the 40 year benefit of longer trains.
The Jubilee line was built for 8-car equivalent trains, and all double doors will shorten dwell times, allowing a more frequent service. Central line length trains will add 8 metres to train length, or 6% capacity, and walk through trains, allowing standing over the couplers, increases capacity a further 10%.
The Picc train order was developed from LU designs for the Vic Line 25 years back! Who would have thought when the Vic and SSL trains were ordered, that it would return again. The Jubilee line order may be 10 years away at least, and outside the current Siemens contract. The case for Northern or Jubilee replacement first is similar to the current case of Picc over Bloo. Both lines current trains are of similar age, so order of replacement will depend on how well they are meeting demand at that time.
I believe replacement PEDs will be essential, by then near 40 years old and due for renewal. A 10 day Christmas blockade would allow major stations to be changed, and perhaps a dispensation for quieter stations such as Bermondsey and Southwark would allow them to operate without PEDs for a time, although platform surfaces would need to be restored. The advantage of all stations being without PEDs for the changeover period is that it allows the new trains to slowly replace the old ones, but a 10 day change-over would probably be achievable if the new trains were stockpiled off system. The service north from Green Park could interwork old & new trains whilst the central section was closed. A shuttle of old trains from Stratford to North Greenwich centre platform could operate until through trains of the new type, when the centre road could be decommissioned until new PEDs were fitted.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on May 20, 2020 7:07:14 GMT
will, any new tube train for the Jubilee line can have EXACTLY the same door spacing as the 1995 tube stock. Tube trains are be bespoke, made to measure so-to-speak, and if exactly the same door spacing is required, that is what will be specified and built. Also, the avoidance of draught relief was a very convenient business case for the PEDs as it meant that a) no one had to try and calculate a safety benefit for the PEDs and it avoided pressure for retrofit to other stations. jimbo, the PEDs may be 40 years old by the time the fleet needs replacement, but I doubt that the fixed glass screens, the doors themselves and the stainless steel header will require replacement, only the operating mechanisms, controllers and possibly the wiring. Indeed that might already be going on - on the Trigger's broom principle.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 20, 2020 7:17:08 GMT
I would imagine a similar situation would be employed when the 1983 stock was replaced. The old fleet was relegated to the Charing Cross branch only leaving the new 1996 stock to work the extension. Now the difference is that the whole line wasn’t open back then. There are a lot more than 33 trains to replace and the frequency is much greater now meaning you would have to run passengers to Charing Cross and back not in service as there isn’t time to detrain them.
A guess would be that along with some relatively lengthy closures over long weekends etc the smaller fleet would work to Charing Cross first and once there were enough trains to run the extension the platform doors could be modified to suit the new stock. Even this will be problematic!
Anyhow we are just creeping into fantasy now so let’s get back to the Siemens stock....
|
|
|
Post by trash80 on May 20, 2020 7:37:55 GMT
Why wouldn't you just specify the same doors for replacement stock? Unless there is a problem with where the doors (and thus PEDs) are situated on the 96ts it would seem to me to be a total waste of money to charge it for the sake of it. The Siemens trains for each line are not going to be exactly the same anyway.
|
|