Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Aug 4, 2006 21:33:57 GMT
You mean like this linkto the other 2009ts thread on the Vic. board?? |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Aug 4, 2006 21:51:42 GMT
You mean like Absolutely! When I read the post and saw the photo originally I agreed privately about the 'spitting image'. However what about the front end of a 1903 motor car:  |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Aug 5, 2006 10:56:59 GMT
It took me a while to work out why that picture looks slightly odd - there is no blue skirt on the first car. Anyone know if there is a reason for this? This is the first pre-series train, it just hasn't had the blue skirt applied yet. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Aug 5, 2006 10:57:22 GMT
Are LUL moving away from wedgelock couplers? Yes.  |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Aug 5, 2006 11:02:54 GMT
Looks quite good i think. Althought looking at that picture, I can only see to carriages with shoebeams. In an 8 car train are four carriages going to be trailers cars then? I think 6/8 cars are motor cars. Thats correct. The formation is as follows: A Car (Motor) - B Car (Trailer) - C Car (Motor) - D Car (Motor/Shunting) /
D Car (Motor/Shunting) - C Car (Motor) - B Car (Trailer) - A Car (Motor) |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Aug 5, 2006 11:03:54 GMT
Well found indeed, LU don't have any shots of the 09 on the test track yet!  |
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Aug 5, 2006 22:37:00 GMT
Dont forget a 4 car 59 /62 stock train was DM - NDM - T - DM so having one trailer per 4 car unit is far from a new concept. The control on 59 family ndm's was taken from the adjacent DM but the NDM's had their own shoegear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2006 2:05:50 GMT
A DM-T-NDM-UNDM arrangement seems sensible, as stephenk has already outlined.
But one thing that intrigues me is the use of a Scharfenberg coupler on the DMs - is it a full coupler or a mechanical+pneumatic coupler?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Aug 8, 2006 23:12:52 GMT
A DM-T-NDM-UNDM arrangement seems sensible, as stephenk has already outlined. But one thing that intrigues me is the use of a Scharfenberg coupler on the DMs - is it a full coupler or a mechanical+pneumatic coupler? Mechanical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2006 1:03:50 GMT
What's the diff between all them couplers?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 9, 2006 2:48:13 GMT
I take it you mean:
Mechanical only - only used to allow a 'push' or 'pull'. Emergency use only as no through electrical or air connections - units remain isolated from each other.
Mechanical & pneumatic - only used to allow a 'push' or 'pull'. Emergency use only as no through electrical connections (there may be limited use for communications, etc). Through air connections available.
Full - all electrical & air connections present. Can be used between units that make up a train - can be found in use on "double ended units".
(and if any of that is wrong, i'm sure i'll be slapped across the wrists corrected)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2006 6:15:21 GMT
Thanks you COLIN!
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Aug 9, 2006 7:35:42 GMT
I have to say though, I can't see the point of only having one trailer car per 4 car unit, unless the motors are underpowered. Maybe the extra motor cars are needed for the improved acceleration in the 09TS over the 67TS. More motors (possibly underpowered) may also reduce the strain on each motor and associated equipment, thus reducing the chance of a Chancery Lane type incident. Excuse me for butting in (first post here) but the original concept for the 09TS was all motored axles like 92TS. This was so Metronet could meet the performance requirements of the PPP contract with available adhesion. After a couple of years of hand wringing, Bombardier managed to persuade themselves that they could meet the requirements with 75% alxes motored. It is cheaper to build - just. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2006 7:39:28 GMT
Hello tubeprune, and welcome. How much cheaper is 'just'?
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Aug 9, 2006 9:09:41 GMT
I am reminded that BR went down the all-axles motored road with the 4-REPs with their 3,300-hp per four cars. Those motors were re-used under the 5-WES Class 442 units in the middle buffet car as you all know. The first 442 to be withdrawn is now to be a 'christmas tree' for the surviving units. BR were concerned about excessive traction current and so they did the ultimate test and combined 3 x 4-REPs together and ran them down to Bournemouth as a 9,900-hp 12-car! I believe that they established that in an emergency they could combine units in service. Of course in service the idea was that the 4-REP would be a push-pull to 2x4-TC trailer sets down to Bournemouth.
It will be interesting to see if the 75% of intended performance works out in practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Aug 9, 2006 10:13:08 GMT
Hello tubeprune, and welcome. How much cheaper is 'just'? I think it was about £10 million. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2006 11:27:40 GMT
Hello tubeprune, and welcome. How much cheaper is 'just'? I think it was about £10 million. You call that just, mate? JUST? Gee... |
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Aug 16, 2006 21:20:06 GMT
Hi all.
Clicked on the link for the vic line test pics but to no avail. Does anybody know if they have been removed or if the link is wrong?
If so would be much appreciated if you ll let me know the correct address. thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2006 6:49:51 GMT
Click on the link to the host site, and you will be able to find out why you cannot access the pic anymore.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Aug 19, 2006 0:17:35 GMT
I think it was about £10 million. You call that just, mate? JUST? Gee... Whilst keeping my feet on the ground here, in reality £10m is a drop in the ocean in upgrade terms.  |
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Aug 21, 2006 11:55:46 GMT
Thank you for being sooo helpful stephenk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2006 0:33:58 GMT
What's a drop in the ocean, prjb?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Aug 22, 2006 6:16:29 GMT
£10million is 3.5% of the cost of the fleet ultimately built.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2006 1:48:02 GMT
But-but... that could buy three trams! Plus an extra million left! I'll buy 92TS DM car if I could. Refurb it and maybe get another one and make my own train!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Aug 23, 2006 2:13:58 GMT
It would be smashing if I found 'just' a bit of money behind the sofa. Infact that could be the reason why its cushens are bulging 3' higher than normal...
Anyway...what will the performance of these trains be similar to? Accelleration/top speed/braking wise....I appreciate you can't give exact details, but is there any stock that they bear a close resemblance to? Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Aug 23, 2006 7:11:22 GMT
Anyway...what will the performance of these trains be similar to? Accelleration/top speed/braking wise....I appreciate you can't give exact details, but is there any stock that they bear a close resemblance to? Many thanks. 2009 TS acceleration max 1.3m/s 2, braking - service up to 1.14m/s 2, emergency - 1.4m/s 2. Top speed 80km/h. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2006 7:30:56 GMT
Wow. Do you teach math?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2006 9:06:52 GMT
2009 TS acceleration max 1.3m/s 2, braking - service up to 1.14m/s 2, emergency - 1.4m/s 2. Top speed 80km/h. Thanks for posting that info |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 23, 2006 12:55:14 GMT
Much obliged; thankyou And unless tubeprune is american, no he doesn't teach 'math'... Pie in the sky I know, but would LUL consider doing a tour of parts of the system using one of the trains, like the D78 tour? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2006 13:24:00 GMT
well the victoria line is the limit as the trains won't fit down the Picc transfer at Finsbury Park. The trains are bigger so that they use the space in the tunnels to the full. There has already been debate about the lack of link to the rest of the network.
|
|
