Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4

I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was impossible
to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen. Hows
that humble pie coming along?)

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>
> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was impossible
> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen. Hows
> that humble pie coming along?)

Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
talking about.

What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
obviously have. The open gangways wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
even you remember? You've been told often enough.

What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern trams):
flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?

On 28/03/2022 17:38, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>
>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was impossible
>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen. Hows
>> that humble pie coming along?)
>
> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
> talking about.
>
> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
> obviously have. The open gangways wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
>
> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
> been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
> even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>
> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern trams):
> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
> if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
> small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>

"Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:38:45 +0100, Certes wrote:

> On 28/03/2022 17:38, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>
>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards
>>> IMO and will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk
>>> through now available (and which certain members of these newgroups
>>> claimed was impossible to do on a tube train because [grasping at
>>> straws] and would never happen. Hows that humble pie coming along?)
>>
>> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they
>> were talking about.
>>
>> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter
>> tube trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens
>> trains obviously have. The open gangways wouldn't have been possible
>> otherwise.
>>
>> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways
>> has been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract.
>> Surely even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>>
>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>> trams):
>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>
>>
> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?

I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
own.

nib

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
> obviously have. The open gangways wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
>

Seems an appropriate moment to show an experiment from the 1970’s
when a unit was made by altering some old 1935 cars ( the prototypes for
the 1938 stock) .
An idea ahead of its time.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/5839612811

GH

"nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...

>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>> trams):
>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>
>>>
>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>
> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
> own.

Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.

Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
wheels". I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
the mental image that your description conjures up.

https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg

If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
carriage having bogies, maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
the end of one carriage and the start of the next one? What is the ride in a
"flying" carriage like compared with one that had bogies - will passengers
tend to gravitate to one type or the other (even if they don't know that
some have no wheels)?

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>> obviously have. The open gangways wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
>>
>
>
> Seems an appropriate moment to show an experiment from the 1970’s
> when a unit was made by altering some old 1935 cars ( the prototypes for
> the 1938 stock) .
> An idea ahead of its time.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/5839612811
>

Thanks, I'd not seen that before.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:58:45 +0100, NY wrote:

> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>> trams):
>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction
>>>> effort?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>
>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies,
>> the ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of
>> their own.
>
> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>
> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
> wheels". I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to
> believe the mental image that your description conjures up.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>
> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
> carriage having bogies, maybe even a single bogie which is shared
> between the end of one carriage and the start of the next one? What is
> the ride in a "flying" carriage like compared with one that had bogies -
> will passengers tend to gravitate to one type or the other (even if they
> don't know that some have no wheels)?

I found a good description in:

<https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-
from-1891-to-2025/>

nib

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>> trams):
>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>
>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
>> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
>> own.
>
> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>
> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
> wheels". I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
> the mental image that your description conjures up.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>
> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
> carriage having bogies,

All the usual benefits of articulation. In particular, the new train will
be longer than the current 73TS, but lighter, with fewer bogies.

> maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
> the end of one carriage and the start of the next one?

That's a conventional Jacob's bogie arrangement. This arrangement is
obviously seen as an improvement on that conventional design. It's popular
with low floor modern trams, which might provide a clue to the advantage.

I'm guessing that keeping the articulated couplings below floor level away
from the bogies, rather than above them, saves space, allowing lower floor
heights. This arrangement might also allow slightly wider cars.

If I'm right, these trains might be slightly wider and taller inside than
current London Tube trains. Not bad, considering that they are also
air-conditioned, as well as more energy efficient. The open gangways also
free up more longitudinal passenger space.

Boarding should also be more efficient, as a train will have 18 wide
double-doors on each side, rather than 12 double-doors and nine or 10
narrow single doors.

> What is the ride in a
> "flying" carriage like compared with one that had bogies

There probably won't be a huge difference in ride, but the flying cars will
probably be a bit smoother and quieter, as they don't have (motored) bogies
with gearboxes underfloor. Vehicle movements will be more controlled than
with the current trains with their unusually long Tube cars.

> will passengers
> tend to gravitate to one type or the other (even if they don't know that
> some have no wheels)?

I don't think most ordinary passengers will even realise that they're in a
flying carriage, but people like me will know, and will indeed tend to
choose one or the other type of car, other things being equal. People who
like to stay near the doors will also tend to choose the four flying cars.

Quote:

The Piccadilly Line train will be a nine-car, ten-bogie articulated train
which will be 113.7m long, 2.844m high and 2.648m wide over the external
sliding doors. Dave explained that Siemens came up with an innovative
solution, having evaluated many options. It will be formed from five
two-bogie motor cars with four intermediate cars – with no wheels –
supported between adjacent cars. As far as your writer is aware, this is a
unique configuration for a metro train, although it is relatively
commonplace in tram and light rail vehicles.

Eight bogies will be motored, with the trailer bogies located under the
cabs. The articulated couplings below floor level will accommodate yaw,
pitch and roll, and one of the two couplings on each intermediate car will
be supplemented by a device at roof level to control roll. The bodies will
be formed of welded aluminium extrusions.

<https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/>

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>
>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>
>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>impossible
>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>Hows
>> that humble pie coming along?)
>
>Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>talking about.
>
>What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains

No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
general modus operandi so no surprises really.

>The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>even you remember? You've been told often enough.

Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
wouldn't be possible on a tube.

>flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?

Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
through the windows particularly if you're standing up.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>
>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>>
>>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>>impossible
>>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>>Hows
>>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>
>>Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>>talking about.
>>
>>What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>>trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>
>No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>general modus operandi so no surprises really.

Oh dear, now your memory is failing, as well as your brain. I remember the multiple discussions very well. You don't
learn, but you do forget.

>
>>The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>>been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>>even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>
>Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>wouldn't be possible on a tube.

Nope, wrong again. I've been saying for years that small Tube trains would need articulation for through gangways.
That's because I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

>
>>flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>>if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>>small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>
>Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
>daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
>through the windows particularly if you're standing up.

On 29/03/2022 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>
>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>>
>>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>> impossible
>>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>> Hows
>>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>
>> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>> talking about.
>>
>> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>
> No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
> general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>
>> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>> been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>> even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>
> Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
> wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>
>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>> if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>> small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>
> Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
> daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
> through the windows particularly if you're standing up.
>
I remember my first trip on the Victoria Line in the sixties when I was
young. We had an Underground manager sitting next to us and he pointed
out that I was the only one of us who could see the station names on the
upper part of the station wall.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:06:40 +0100, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>>
>>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>>>
>>>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>>>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>>>impossible
>>>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>>>Hows
>>>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>>
>>>Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>>>talking about.
>>>
>>>What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>>>trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>>
>>No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>>general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>
>Oh dear, now your memory is failing, as well as your brain. I remember the multiple discussions very well. You don't
>learn, but you do forget.
>
>>
>>>The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>>>been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>>>even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>>
>>Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>>wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>
>Nope, wrong again. I've been saying for years that small Tube trains would need articulation for through gangways.
>That's because I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.
>
>>
>>>flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>>>if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>>>small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>
>>Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
>>daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
>>through the windows particularly if you're standing up.

Aha, a quick search through the archives shows your memory was following your brain down the tubes as ago as 2014:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:52:50 GMT, spud-u-dont-like@potato.field wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:47:32 -0500
>Recliner <Recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
>><spud-u-dont-like@potato.field> wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29520761
>>>
>>> I distinctly remember arguing on this group a few years back with someone
>>> saying that walk through tube trains would be impossible because of [insert
>>> nonsense reason about loading gauge here]. Good thing for them I can't
>>remember
>>> who it was and I'm too lazy to go through the archives otherwise there would
>>be
>>> a serious session of I Told You So right now.
>>>
>>Apart from being being lazy, you have a bad memory as well as a poor grasp
>
>Or perhaps I use my memory for more important things than remembering the
>names of people in long ago usenet arguments.
>
>>of engineering. The argument was with me, and it was that small-size Tube
>>stock would need to be articulated to have wide through gangways. Years
>
>Yes you did. Then it was pointed out to you that equally narrow non articulated
>trains in paris already had walk through at which point you disappeared in a
>fog of bluster.
>
>>ago, such trains were proposed for the Victoria line, but Metronet went for
>>cheaper conventional stock with your favourite thick walls instead.
>
>And that proves what other than metronet were idiots?

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>> trams):
>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>
>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
>> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
>> own.
>
> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>
> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
> wheels".

It's not 100% flying because the outer vehicles have one bogie, but the
principle can be seen easily on the Sheffield Tram-Train vehicles
<https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/12/9b/3a/2e/one-of-the-newest-trams.jpg>.

> I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
> the mental image that your description conjures up.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>

Yes, basically like that.

> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
> carriage having bogies, maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
> the end of one carriage and the start of the next one?

Presumably it makes the articulations simpler and cheaper?

Edit, after reading other replies: LU tube-size trains have floor height
below the tops of the wheels. This is difficult to reconcile with
traditional articulation using Jacobs bogies.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I found a good description in:
>
> <https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-
> from-1891-to-2025/>
>
>

Great article, very detailed! Thanks :)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>>
>>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>>>
>>>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>>>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>>> impossible
>>>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>>> Hows
>>>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>>
>>> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>>> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>>
>> No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>> general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>>
>>> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>>> been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>>> even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>>
>> Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>> wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>>
>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>>> if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>>> small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>
>> Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
>> daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
>> through the windows particularly if you're standing up.
>>
> I remember my first trip on the Victoria Line in the sixties when I was
> young. We had an Underground manager sitting next to us and he pointed
> out that I was the only one of us who could see the station names on the
> upper part of the station wall.
>

It's a lot better these days, with in-train dispays and automatic
announcements on most lines. Some trains also say which sides the doors
will open at the next station, and if any doors won't open (because of
SED). The open gangways will also make it easier to see the displays in the
next car.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:06:40 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>>general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>
>Oh dear, now your memory is failing, as well as your brain. I remember the
>multiple discussions very well. You don't
>learn, but you do forget.

I remember you banging on about how it wasn't possible on such a narrow
train whereupon I pointed out that they do it in Paris with trains just as
narrow albeit taller. Cue much back pedalling from yourself with irrelevant
arguments about the bogie positions as if somehow they couldn't be changed on
a tube train.

>>Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>>wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>
>Nope, wrong again. I've been saying for years that small Tube trains would
>need articulation for through gangways.

Of course you have.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:53:58 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:06:40 +0100, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Aha, a quick search through the archives shows your memory was following your
>brain down the tubes as ago as 2014:

Thank you for proving my memory is spot on:

>>>of engineering. The argument was with me, and it was that small-size Tube
>>>stock would need to be articulated to have wide through gangways. Years
>>
>>Yes you did. Then it was pointed out to you that equally narrow non
>articulated
>>trains in paris already had walk through at which point you disappeared in a
>>fog of bluster.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nice own goal there :)

On 28/03/2022 17:38, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>
>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was impossible
>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen. Hows
>> that humble pie coming along?)
>
> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
> talking about.
>
> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
> obviously have. The open gangways wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
>
> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
> been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
> even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>
> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern trams):
> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
> if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
> small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>

I don't know why, but they remind me of the 59ts that still runs on
Alderney.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:06:40 +0100
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>>> general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>>
>> Oh dear, now your memory is failing, as well as your brain. I remember the
>> multiple discussions very well. You don't
>> learn, but you do forget.
>
> I remember you banging on about how it wasn't possible on such a narrow
> train whereupon I pointed out that they do it in Paris with trains just as
> narrow albeit taller. Cue much back pedalling from yourself with irrelevant
> arguments about the bogie positions as if somehow they couldn't be changed on
> a tube train.
>
>>> Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>>> wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>>
>> Nope, wrong again. I've been saying for years that small Tube trains would
>> need articulation for through gangways.
>
> Of course you have.

You're judt confirming your memory loss.

I wonder they will put a mock up on display in London, the way they did
with the 09ts.

Not in the near future, I fear.

On 28/03/2022 22:42, Recliner wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>>> trams):
>>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>>
>>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
>>> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
>>> own.
>>
>> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>>
>> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
>> wheels". I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
>> the mental image that your description conjures up.
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>>
>> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
>> carriage having bogies,
>
> All the usual benefits of articulation. In particular, the new train will
> be longer than the current 73TS, but lighter, with fewer bogies.
>
>> maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
>> the end of one carriage and the start of the next one?
>
> That's a conventional Jacob's bogie arrangement. This arrangement is
> obviously seen as an improvement on that conventional design. It's popular
> with low floor modern trams, which might provide a clue to the advantage.
>
> I'm guessing that keeping the articulated couplings below floor level away
> from the bogies, rather than above them, saves space, allowing lower floor
> heights. This arrangement might also allow slightly wider cars.
>
> If I'm right, these trains might be slightly wider and taller inside than
> current London Tube trains. Not bad, considering that they are also
> air-conditioned, as well as more energy efficient. The open gangways also
> free up more longitudinal passenger space.
>
> Boarding should also be more efficient, as a train will have 18 wide
> double-doors on each side, rather than 12 double-doors and nine or 10
> narrow single doors.
>
>
>> What is the ride in a
>> "flying" carriage like compared with one that had bogies
>
> There probably won't be a huge difference in ride, but the flying cars will
> probably be a bit smoother and quieter, as they don't have (motored) bogies
> with gearboxes underfloor. Vehicle movements will be more controlled than
> with the current trains with their unusually long Tube cars.
>
>> will passengers
>> tend to gravitate to one type or the other (even if they don't know that
>> some have no wheels)?
>
> I don't think most ordinary passengers will even realise that they're in a
> flying carriage, but people like me will know, and will indeed tend to
> choose one or the other type of car, other things being equal. People who
> like to stay near the doors will also tend to choose the four flying cars.
>
> Quote:
>
> The Piccadilly Line train will be a nine-car, ten-bogie articulated train
> which will be 113.7m long, 2.844m high and 2.648m wide over the external
> sliding doors. Dave explained that Siemens came up with an innovative
> solution, having evaluated many options. It will be formed from five
> two-bogie motor cars with four intermediate cars – with no wheels –
> supported between adjacent cars. As far as your writer is aware, this is a
> unique configuration for a metro train, although it is relatively
> commonplace in tram and light rail vehicles.
>
> Eight bogies will be motored, with the trailer bogies located under the
> cabs. The articulated couplings below floor level will accommodate yaw,
> pitch and roll, and one of the two couplings on each intermediate car will
> be supplemented by a device at roof level to control roll. The bodies will
> be formed of welded aluminium extrusions.
>
> <https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/>

Did I not hear somewhere that, despite being lighter, the bogies in such
a configuration can put more stress on the rails?

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>>> trams):
>>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>>
>>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
>>> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
>>> own.
>>
>> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>>
>> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
>> wheels".
>
> It's not 100% flying because the outer vehicles have one bogie, but the
> principle can be seen easily on the Sheffield Tram-Train vehicles
> <https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/12/9b/3a/2e/one-of-the-newest-trams.jpg>.
>
>
>> I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
>> the mental image that your description conjures up.
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>>
>
> Yes, basically like that.
>
>> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
>> carriage having bogies, maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
>> the end of one carriage and the start of the next one?
>
> Presumably it makes the articulations simpler and cheaper?
>
> Edit, after reading other replies: LU tube-size trains have floor height
> below the tops of the wheels. This is difficult to reconcile with
> traditional articulation using Jacobs bogies.

Umm. But like many other through-gangway designs the aperture between
carriages is mushroom shaped, so there would be room for a wheel at each
side.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 22:42, Recliner wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>>>> trams):
>>>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>>>
>>>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
>>>> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
>>>> own.
>>>
>>> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>>>
>>> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
>>> wheels". I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
>>> the mental image that your description conjures up.
>>>
>>> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>>>
>>> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
>>> carriage having bogies,
>>
>> All the usual benefits of articulation. In particular, the new train will
>> be longer than the current 73TS, but lighter, with fewer bogies.
>>
>>> maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
>>> the end of one carriage and the start of the next one?
>>
>> That's a conventional Jacob's bogie arrangement. This arrangement is
>> obviously seen as an improvement on that conventional design. It's popular
>> with low floor modern trams, which might provide a clue to the advantage.
>>
>> I'm guessing that keeping the articulated couplings below floor level away
>> from the bogies, rather than above them, saves space, allowing lower floor
>> heights. This arrangement might also allow slightly wider cars.
>>
>> If I'm right, these trains might be slightly wider and taller inside than
>> current London Tube trains. Not bad, considering that they are also
>> air-conditioned, as well as more energy efficient. The open gangways also
>> free up more longitudinal passenger space.
>>
>> Boarding should also be more efficient, as a train will have 18 wide
>> double-doors on each side, rather than 12 double-doors and nine or 10
>> narrow single doors.
>>
>>
>>> What is the ride in a
>>> "flying" carriage like compared with one that had bogies
>>
>> There probably won't be a huge difference in ride, but the flying cars will
>> probably be a bit smoother and quieter, as they don't have (motored) bogies
>> with gearboxes underfloor. Vehicle movements will be more controlled than
>> with the current trains with their unusually long Tube cars.
>>
>>> will passengers
>>> tend to gravitate to one type or the other (even if they don't know that
>>> some have no wheels)?
>>
>> I don't think most ordinary passengers will even realise that they're in a
>> flying carriage, but people like me will know, and will indeed tend to
>> choose one or the other type of car, other things being equal. People who
>> like to stay near the doors will also tend to choose the four flying cars.
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> The Piccadilly Line train will be a nine-car, ten-bogie articulated train
>> which will be 113.7m long, 2.844m high and 2.648m wide over the external
>> sliding doors. Dave explained that Siemens came up with an innovative
>> solution, having evaluated many options. It will be formed from five
>> two-bogie motor cars with four intermediate cars – with no wheels –
>> supported between adjacent cars. As far as your writer is aware, this is a
>> unique configuration for a metro train, although it is relatively
>> commonplace in tram and light rail vehicles.
>>
>> Eight bogies will be motored, with the trailer bogies located under the
>> cabs. The articulated couplings below floor level will accommodate yaw,
>> pitch and roll, and one of the two couplings on each intermediate car will
>> be supplemented by a device at roof level to control roll. The bodies will
>> be formed of welded aluminium extrusions.
>>
>> <https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/>
>
> Did I not hear somewhere that, despite being lighter, the bogies in such
> a configuration can put more stress on the rails?
>

According to that article it's the opposite; axle loads are heavier, but
the overall arrangement puts less wear on the track.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "nib" <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:t1t370$b65$2@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>>> What became known a year or two ago was that they'd have a form of
>>>>>> articulation that's a first for heavy rail (though common on modern
>>>>>> trams):
>>>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I
>>>>>> wonder if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or
>>>>>> perhaps the small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Flying carriages with no wheels" sound interesting! Do you mean that
>>>>> the carriages overhang beyond the bogies like non-articulated stock?
>>>>
>>>> I had to look it up too! Every other carriage has the usual 2 bogies, the
>>>> ones in between are suspended at both ends and have no wheels of their
>>>> own.
>>>
>>> Flying carriages sounds like something from Harry Potter.
>>>
>>> Do you have a URL for photos/description of "Flying carriages with no
>>> wheels".
>>
>> It's not 100% flying because the outer vehicles have one bogie, but the
>> principle can be seen easily on the Sheffield Tram-Train vehicles
>> <https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/12/9b/3a/2e/one-of-the-newest-trams.jpg>.
>>
>>
>>> I'm trying to visualise what you describe - or at least to believe
>>> the mental image that your description conjures up.
>>>
>>> https://i.postimg.cc/902893yj/20220328-214947.jpg
>>>
>>
>> Yes, basically like that.
>>
>>> If every alternate carriage has bogies, what is the advantage over every
>>> carriage having bogies, maybe even a single bogie which is shared between
>>> the end of one carriage and the start of the next one?
>>
>> Presumably it makes the articulations simpler and cheaper?
>>
>> Edit, after reading other replies: LU tube-size trains have floor height
>> below the tops of the wheels. This is difficult to reconcile with
>> traditional articulation using Jacobs bogies.
>
> Umm. But like many other through-gangway designs the aperture between
> carriages is mushroom shaped, so there would be room for a wheel at each
> side.
>

Yes, but there wouldn't be room for the articulated coupling between the
bogie and the low floor through the open gangway. Hence the smart decision
to displace the substantial articulated coupling beyond the bogie, which
allows it to be placed at axle height.

It's an idea adapted from low floor trams, which have a similar issue.