|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 16, 2024 6:23:43 GMT
erm, am I reading this correctly - longer trains but lower passenger capacity??? shakes head in astonished disbelief Yep, reading incorrectly- as the figures are for 2024TS (first data sheet v. second data sheet) and not 1973TS v. 2024TS Will the production trains vary in any way from the two prototypes? Has anything been learnt from the trials to change the production version? Will the first two trains be modified to match? Is the change in passenger capacity a result of these trials? The drop in seating and standing capacity at this late stage with the first train due imminently is odd, 12 seats across a 9-car train.
|
|
|
Post by starlight73 on Sept 16, 2024 9:13:37 GMT
This is complete speculation, but could it be to do with a miscalculation of the number of wheelchair bays?
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 16, 2024 9:14:29 GMT
David Hooper of Siemens says it will hold 1,049 people at the start of the Railway Gazette video of 9 months back: linkYou would expect that less seats would leave more standing room, but both have reduced! A reduction of 12 seats may link with the 4 intermediate cars, i.e. 3 seats less in each of those? 3 seats is half of a centre-bay seating section. I think the count has changed from time to time. I am looking at an undated diagram which shows 236 seats, which would be 260 if all the missing seats in wheelchair areas etc. could be folded down for use. A 2021 diagram has 244 seats, or 268 with folded seats down. The difference seems to be that a deeper cab has since removed 2 seats on each side at both ends. This year's presentation shows on slide 15, a further seat on each side has gone from behind the cab, so with the 2 removed above, means 3 seats missing on each side at each end; total 12, due to a larger cab, i.e. less seating and less standing space. Q.E.D.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 16, 2024 10:06:24 GMT
Long grey boards that say “NOT IN USE” have appeared at some Piccadilly line stations. These might be stopping marker boards for the 2024 stock? I am surprised it is further back than the S7 stopping posts. Would they be shorter in overall length than S7's
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 16, 2024 10:44:42 GMT
Siemens leaflet says 113.7 over couplings. S7 is 117.4 over couplings, so 3.7 metres longer!
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Sept 16, 2024 10:51:45 GMT
Also the T/Op's final visual alignment to the mark on 24TS is via a side porthole window similar to 92TS, 95/96TS. S stock doesn't have that and alignment to a left hand chevron is to the edge of the left hand windscreen, a different viewing angle that puts the chevron further forward in front of the train. So one would not expect S stock and 24TS stop markers to be in the same position.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 16, 2024 18:46:25 GMT
"...The difference seems to be that a deeper cab has since removed 2 seats on each side at both ends."
This will no doubt be the £34 million modification carried out because "The instructor operator didn't have enough space..."
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,651
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 17, 2024 13:51:07 GMT
Will the production trains vary in any way from the two prototypes? Given that every other recent new stock's production version has differed from the prototypes it's almost certain the answer to this will be yes Has anything been learnt from the trials to change the production version? Probably. But the greatest learning is likely to come from the trials on the line itself - a simulation can never be completely accurate Will the first two trains be modified to match? It's almost certainly too early to say. It will depend on what modifications will be required, iirc those for the 2009 stock were so extensive that the prototypes were scrapped as it was cheaper to build two more production trains. Is the change in passenger capacity a result of these trials? This is the most likely explanation.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Sept 17, 2024 20:51:32 GMT
, iirc those for the 2009 stock were so extensive that the prototypes were scrapped as it was cheaper to build two more production trains. An IRSE lecture I went to - admittedly focused on the signalling side - implied the other way around - it was always known those prototypes would be different (they were effectively hand built out of bespoke items never mind what mods they were subject to) and costly to standardise they were never intended to be delivered. In other words the cost was identified first, not after testing etc was over. The manufacture technique was new to Derby, and they needed to develope bespoke tools and jigs, that took time, hence the hand built test units to trial fit cabling and components. AIUI there was at least one test build S car that never saw light of day either - this is not unusual - often it comes to no-ones attention - after all how many people apart from those involved in such a contract (and hence bound by confidentiality) get to visit Derby or anywhere else. It is known for example that Siemens did have at least 1 main line 'Desiro City' (main line 700 type) test piece - that was only known about by little advertised staff family open day at Krefeld works. It would surprise me not if there are other NTFL test car(s) in Germany that are never delivered.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Sept 17, 2024 20:55:04 GMT
Anyway, what I actually came on to post today is I hear - and this is from encoded jungle drums - there /may/ be a NTFL train delivery via channel tunnel "this weekend".
I know no more than that - it was vague "this weekend".
So far I can see no obvious GB main line paths in RTT - but this been the case with other new main line stock past deliveries as a anti grafiti precaution.
If nothing appears, don't shoot the messenger, as all I am doing is relaying a coded message.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 17, 2024 21:11:46 GMT
I seem to recall that one of the initial S stock cars was inadvertently dropped and bent in the factory, and was substituted with a car from a climate test rig.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Sept 17, 2024 21:23:51 GMT
I seem to recall that one of the initial S stock cars was inadvertently dropped and bent in the factory, and was substituted with a car from a climate test rig. I'd not heard that but entirely plausible. Whatever, no way is it exceptional for any large production run of anything at any time to have test / trial vehicles. Build 1000 vehicle contract - build 1 or 2 test pieces and scrap it is peanuts - 0.1% of the build total and if it offers overall cost savings enabling early try outs, it actually saves. What is an exception is to find out about them. And if they do not have numbers then the trainspotting fraternity can't match them up with anything, can't report them other than unidentified, and when they are not there next visit, no-one is any the wiser...... but it is one of those things the numerologists get hot under the collar about. Way back in time (1978) when I was a National Bus Co engineering trainee I got two extended visits to Workington Leyland National bus factory - and one part of the place was littered with all sorts of bits and pieces from complete shells downwards but never intended to run or were production line abortions. In 1980s a post student temp. job was at the Rootes Ryton plant building Talbot Horizons - and there were a number of never intended to be sold bodies there too. Bus building on a 1970s production line or 1980s cars is no different to Derby's or anywhere else modern train building production line.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,173
|
Post by Tom on Sept 17, 2024 22:02:43 GMT
Anyway, what I actually came on to post today is I hear - and this is from encoded jungle drums - there /may/ be a NTFL train delivery via channel tunnel "this weekend". I know no more than that - it was vague "this weekend". So far I can see no obvious GB main line paths in RTT - but this been the case with other new main line stock past deliveries as a anti grafiti precaution. If nothing appears, don't shoot the messenger, as all I am doing is relaying a coded message. I would suggest that any suggestion of dates to within ±2 days, whilst heavily couched, could be considered a possible breach of Rule 7, both in terms of possible security concerns and as an unusual train movement.
As has been our approach for other potential deliveries of new stock we would request members do not publicise possible moves, even if in heavily coded or very generalised terms.
|
|