|
Post by tjw on Aug 5, 2023 19:36:25 GMT
Traction voltage bus lines have an interesting history... I would recommend reading the Southern Railway rule book appendix for Electric trains c.1940s.
So we have a multiple unit, this will have a number of shoe beam pick ups and a number of motor cars. If we connect all the shoe beams together with a bus we make it easy to get power to the motors... This then creates a problem say we have a four car EMU, the outer shoe beams will be 4 cars apart. If we can join several EMUs together to create a 12 COR, the outer shoe beams are even further apart.
So an electrified line will have different supplies with dead sections between them, with a 4 car unit with a continuous traction bus we would need a long dead section. Now things get very dangerous, what happens if our EMU bridges between two different electrified sections? What happens if one section has been turned off due to an accident? The EMU bus line can then end up carrying and enormous current as several trains on the dead section could still be trying to draw current and all this current is having to go through the EMU bus. This has been the cause of some major fires as the bus wire ends up carrying far more current that it is designed to and gets very hot and sets fire to the wooden framed EMU!
We have another safety aspect, those that have a LU depot pass will have been told all about the depot jumpers... Having a plug carrying 420V / 630V, 650V or 750V is rather dangerous. We need to have a safe method of working to attach and detach jumpers between cars. This of course can be done in the depot, but in the past this could be done when units were split or joined while in service. The latter was banned because of safety rules, but if a safe (automatic) method is devised perhaps as part of an automatic coupler the problem is solved.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 7, 2023 7:12:57 GMT
I have a feeling that the issue with single bore tunnels and bans on operating units like the 365s is (as has already been mentioned) inherently about means of egress. Some (not all) single bore tunnels are still wide enough to incorporate a rudimentary walkway along one side of the tunnel. This means that despite the lack of cab end doors or intercar doors, in emergency passengers can still exit through the normal doors onto the walkway. Where walkways are provided, they tend to have tunnel lights operating day and night, and there is no issue operating units like 365s through them.
As for bus bars - doubtless whoever designs the New Train for London rolling stock will be very aware of potential risks associated with linked bus bars. I guess we can only hope they have devised a system that is safe for passengers and staff in normal operating configurations and indeed in any abnormal configuration (potentially over length) such as where two trains are coupled up to rescue a failed train.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Aug 7, 2023 16:28:21 GMT
Traction voltage bus lines have an interesting history... I would recommend reading the Southern Railway rule book appendix for Electric trains c.1940s. So we have a multiple unit, this will have a number of shoe beam pick ups and a number of motor cars. If we connect all the shoe beams together with a bus we make it easy to get power to the motors... This then creates a problem say we have a four car EMU, the outer shoe beams will be 4 cars apart. If we can join several EMUs together to create a 12 COR, the outer shoe beams are even further apart. So an electrified line will have different supplies with dead sections between them, with a 4 car unit with a continuous traction bus we would need a long dead section. Now things get very dangerous, what happens if our EMU bridges between two different electrified sections? What happens if one section has been turned off due to an accident? The EMU bus line can then end up carrying and enormous current as several trains on the dead section could still be trying to draw current and all this current is having to go through the EMU bus. This has been the cause of some major fires as the bus wire ends up carrying far more current that it is designed to and gets very hot and sets fire to the wooden framed EMU! Indeed, bridging of adjacent traction supplies across gaps through trains is another issue. BR SR (as opposed to SR) EMU did not have the power jumpers between multiplied units; of the top of my head the last series built type that did was 4Sub; 4DD had them too (prototypes; no series built), and, I think I read somewhere the first 4EPB 5001 may have had them at time of brand new completion. Bridging through a traction bus is not just limited to traction power. It concerns signalling circuits, especially JTC jointless track circuits. The BR SR default configuration would not allow signalling currents to stray through any one "standard" 4car EMU like EPB Vep Cep Cig etc***; how many of them are coupled is irrelevant. The difficult units were 4Rep with a duplicated set of bus cross coupling all shoes; this had different electrical characteristics than "standard" units and required some precise track circuit tuning of the particular type used on the 1966 BOMO line upgrade. 4Reps in the Woking / Weybridge / Surbiton area was notorious and really never 100.00% resolved. I have never heard of this issue on LU lines, but, assume (dangerous things assumptions) that exactly because there was no traction bus on LU stock the matter did not arise. *** the modern AC motor VVVF units don't really come into this /exact/ problem; they do have signalling issues, but different to this one.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Aug 7, 2023 16:45:06 GMT
I have a feeling that the issue with single bore tunnels and bans on operating units like the 365s is (as has already been mentioned) inherently about means of egress. Some (not all) single bore tunnels are still wide enough to incorporate a rudimentary walkway along one side of the tunnel. This means that despite the lack of cab end doors or intercar doors, in emergency passengers can still exit through the normal doors onto the walkway. Where walkways are provided, they tend to have tunnel lights operating day and night, and there is no issue operating units like 365s through them. Which is precisely why I said these are grey areas. But yes while you are right, it is that once you go into the access / egress subject, for example the whole range of 317/319/700/377/387/455***/465*** issue opens up for the Thameslink core tunnels, what requirement accentuates or attenuates the risk highest. If you include the now closed Moorgate section, there were three discrete areas of restriction between Moorgate and Kentish Town linked to side clearances rather than these electrical matters. Then, if you look further back, before BedPan, to diesel days, there were yet further differences into which route was taken (the old GN route via Kings Cross or the Midland route) w.r.t. gangwayed or non gangwayed DMU+++, and then 57 ft or 63 ft non gangwayed suburban coaches, and 57 ft or 63 ft DMU..... and so on. If you now project the concepts up to Merseyside, you will probably get different answers to seemingly the same question. And LU certainly different answers. Nevertheless, the traction bus w.r.t. single bore tunnels is a factor. In the case of the ECML tunnels, it will which one over rules; AFAIK you are right that egress is the principal reason in those locations; and once egress is resolved, you have that mitigation on a serious incident from traction bus. *** 465/365 could reach City Thameslink and StPauls sidings; going even further, 455 could (and did) reach Farringdon. quite apart from 455 and 465 AND 365 when based at Ramsgate were DC only, there were still other restrictions associated with tunnels to get even as far as they did on DC. +++ see the accident report into the dmu fire at Napsbury 1960s. On could write an entire book on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Aug 7, 2023 16:49:12 GMT
PS I thought about combining my 2 above posts, but they are 2 different sub topics and I have a feeling the length of the combined post might lead to reader confusion, hence left them seperate.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 22, 2023 8:01:35 GMT
New Tube for London Air Conditioning - Request ID: FOI-1441-2324 - Date published: 21 August 2023 - link
Are these temps equivalent to S stock, E-line, etc?
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Aug 22, 2023 18:06:22 GMT
Sounds really good given the compromises needed to get it into the space available
|
|
|
Post by xtmw on Oct 2, 2023 17:23:38 GMT
It's been confirmed by TfL via a FOI request that the 2024 stock will be using a 'artificial/synthetic voice' for its announcements. This is most likely down to cost saving measures. To save on costs, they recently had a TfL staff member record the announcements (who will be voicing the 72 stock after its refurb). Here's the link: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/announcements_on_new_piccadilly#incoming-2434094
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 3, 2023 4:40:05 GMT
Posting at districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/523140/thread suggests direct fleet delivery from Siemens to the Bakerloo, which made me wonder what is to happen with the Piccadilly Line trains expected from next year? The 2009 tube stock went direct to Northumberland Park depot by road, whilst the S stock was delivered direct by rail to Neasden depot. The Picc trains are not easily split for delivery by road, and both Picc depots will be in the throws of reconstruction. That suggests that Ruislip could likely have space and direct delivery access from Goole. However, new trains can no longer be trialed to and from North Acton due to its unique signalling system. Perhaps to and from South Harrow sidings, or to Acton Town?
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 3, 2023 13:21:32 GMT
What about the Northfields - South Ealing test track? Too Short?
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 4, 2023 13:32:19 GMT
It's been confirmed by TfL via a FOI request that the 2024 stock will be using a 'artificial/synthetic voice' for its announcements. If it's anything like the one used at London Bridge, it'll be unlistenable to. Long announcements which include several station names in succession are unintelligible. The intonation is all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 4, 2023 14:09:35 GMT
The software tool for 24TS actually seems to be able to give good announcements without the type of problem suggested.
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Oct 27, 2023 11:09:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 27, 2023 14:36:09 GMT
The Class 345s for the Elizabeth line were being tested without their step plates just a few days before entering service. I saw a platform at Maryland being shaved.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Oct 28, 2023 16:17:17 GMT
I'm struggling not to laugh at the text underneath the hadline...
So like every other rolling stock replacement exercise then...
#StatingTheObvious
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 28, 2023 19:25:02 GMT
The new trains are longer than the old, but with 9-cars instead of 6-cars, that is not the reason for a larger gap. The difference in gap depends on the distance between pivot points. The old trains are 11,124mm between bogie centres with 3,276mm end overhang. The new bogie cars are only 10,268mm between bogie centres with no end doors. I don't know how the intermediate cars are supported, but presumably at the articulation, so 9,978 car length between pivot points. The new trains will be 2,528mm wide over step ledges (advanced calculation technique), which are 720mm above rail level. The current trains are 2,629mm over body sides, the new trains 2,675mm. I do not see any pointer to larger gaps. [Dimensions from LU Rolling Stock Information Sheet and FOI-1406-2324]
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Oct 28, 2023 20:01:47 GMT
Is it not that the new trains will have a lower floor to enable level access, and thus the treadplates will be lower (potentially almost level with the existing platform height)?
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 28, 2023 20:14:53 GMT
The 2014 feasibility study, released with the King's Cross public exhibition of concept, saw all platforms raised to current step-plate height with platform edge doors to allow full automation. I believed the new train step-plates would be a similar height to the current ones.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 29, 2023 0:24:54 GMT
I'm struggling not to laugh at the text underneath the hadline... So like every other rolling stock replacement exercise then... #StatingTheObvious Not quite every. For lines/railways with small fleets it is not uncommon to completely withdraw the old fleet before introducing the new. This was done for example on the Island Line recently and the Waterloo and City line in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 29, 2023 6:57:30 GMT
The Piccadilly Line depots are being rebuilt to hold the new fleet of 94 trains plus a possible further 18 for 36tph service after resignalling, for a total fleet of 112 trains. This will be 25.5 more than the current 86.5 train fleet, so that many new trains could be accommodated on the line before the first old train would need to be removed to make room for another new train.
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 29, 2023 7:33:26 GMT
Either the reporter’s read board papers without understanding them properly, or someone’s stirring.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 29, 2023 14:21:46 GMT
My guesstimate of the situation the reporter read board papers without understanding them properly
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Oct 29, 2023 21:36:03 GMT
I'm struggling not to laugh at the text underneath the hadline... So like every other rolling stock replacement exercise then... #StatingTheObvious Not quite every. For lines/railways with small fleets it is not uncommon to completely withdraw the old fleet before introducing the new. This was done for example on the Island Line recently and the Waterloo and City line in the 1990s. Comparable rolling stock replacement then.... as in number of trains...
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 10, 2023 9:03:08 GMT
Wooden New Piccadilly Train Set link - the toys arrive before the real thing!
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 10, 2023 10:43:08 GMT
I'm not happy with the accuracy of the bogeys on that...
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 11, 2023 0:21:50 GMT
er em, is the line also being converted for rubber tyred trains? ... all the way to Uxbridge?? (see LTM photos of the new model trains)
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 17, 2023 18:19:51 GMT
Video of 2024 Stock on the test track at Wildenrath:
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 20, 2023 12:21:36 GMT
I'm sure he meant Overground at the end, and poor old (tired looking!) S-stock gets forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Nov 20, 2023 17:46:37 GMT
And forgot Vic line 09TS as the last new Tube size fleet.
|
|
|
Post by xtmw on Nov 21, 2023 20:14:53 GMT
Interestingly, on the 2024 stock TMS (from a YouTube video) there is a button which says 'REFUSE J-DOOR'
|
|