Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 22.07.23 11:10, Coffee wrote:
>> On 22/07/2023 09:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:29:12 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 15:37:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> And whats the point of aircon when there's nowhere for the heat to
>>>>>>> go?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There with; l be less heat to disperse.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry: auto correct typo.  Should be 'there will be less heat to
>>>> disperse'.
>>>> [As you well know]
>>>
>>> Thats what they said when the 2009 turned up. Regen braking - less
>>> heat etc.
>>> Hasn't turned out that way because of the more frequent service which
>>> is also
>>> what they're planning for the pic. Add heat from aircon on to that
>>> which will
>>> be substantial and you have slowly boiling pax on station platforms.
>>>
>>>>> Unlike you I don't live on here and remember everything ever posted
>>>>> because
>>>>> you have nothing better to do with your time.
>>>>
>>>> You were part of those discussions. So it's yet another confirmation of
>>>
>>> So what? Do you remember what you discussed couple of years ago?
>>>
>>>> your failing memory.
>>>
>>> No, just a normal memory. People forget trivia and also important
>>> facts too. If
>>> that wasn't the case exam revision wouldn't be a thing. And don't
>>> pretend you
>>> remember what was discussed either as I'm sure you've been frantically
>>> re-reading all the posts. I have better things to do.
>>>
>>>>> One of the main sellings points of a jacobs bogie is that they DON'T
>>>>> require
>>>>
>>>>> raising of the frame.
>>>>
>>>> Go back and read the several threads on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> You can't have a low floor over a Jacobs bogie. You can over a
>>>> conventional
>>>> bogie, as Tube trains have long done.
>>>
>>> Tube trains floors arn't low in the tram sense, they're just lower than
>>> mainline stock.
>>>
>>>
>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>> new heat.
>
> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
> ammount of heat extracted.

I was going to say something similar.

- You can’t win, you can only break even.
- You can’t break even except at absolute zero.
- You can never reach absolute zero.

Sam

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

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 22.07.23 11:10, Coffee wrote:
>> On 22/07/2023 09:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:29:12 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 15:37:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> And whats the point of aircon when there's nowhere for the heat to
>>>>>>> go?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There with; l be less heat to disperse.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry: auto correct typo.  Should be 'there will be less heat to
>>>> disperse'.
>>>> [As you well know]
>>>
>>> Thats what they said when the 2009 turned up. Regen braking - less
>>> heat etc.
>>> Hasn't turned out that way because of the more frequent service which
>>> is also
>>> what they're planning for the pic. Add heat from aircon on to that
>>> which will
>>> be substantial and you have slowly boiling pax on station platforms.
>>>
>>>>> Unlike you I don't live on here and remember everything ever posted
>>>>> because
>>>>> you have nothing better to do with your time.
>>>>
>>>> You were part of those discussions. So it's yet another confirmation of
>>>
>>> So what? Do you remember what you discussed couple of years ago?
>>>
>>>> your failing memory.
>>>
>>> No, just a normal memory. People forget trivia and also important
>>> facts too. If
>>> that wasn't the case exam revision wouldn't be a thing. And don't
>>> pretend you
>>> remember what was discussed either as I'm sure you've been frantically
>>> re-reading all the posts. I have better things to do.
>>>
>>>>> One of the main sellings points of a jacobs bogie is that they DON'T
>>>>> require
>>>>
>>>>> raising of the frame.
>>>>
>>>> Go back and read the several threads on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> You can't have a low floor over a Jacobs bogie. You can over a
>>>> conventional
>>>> bogie, as Tube trains have long done.
>>>
>>> Tube trains floors arn't low in the tram sense, they're just lower than
>>> mainline stock.
>>>
>>>
>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>> new heat.
>
> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
> ammount of heat extracted.
>

Yes, for sure. But I think less energy will be needed by the ventilation
fans, which will partially compensate. The trains may also be more
aerodynamic, thanks to open gangways (rather than open carriage end-door
windows).

But the other way these new trains will save energy is by being lighter,
despite their higher capacity. That's mainly achieved by having fewer
(heavy) bogies per unit of train length.

Siemens says:

The trains will be lighter, more energy-efficient. With advanced energy
management and LED lighting, overall energy consumption is reduced by 20
per cent compared with the existing fleet. They will also emit less heat
into the tunnels than current rolling stock.

The longer, more spacious, air-conditioned trains – with HVAC units
integrated under the train - will be fully walk-through, boosting
accessibility and ensuring customers can move easily to quieter areas.

The new trains feature regenerative braking capability and cutting-edge
traction systems using low-loss permanent magnet motors and auxiliary
electric systems that feature silicon carbide technology, as well as
Lithium Ion batteries. They will also have digital screens for real-time
customer information and advertising fitted throughout.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:41:25 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>>> new heat.
>>
>> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>> ammount of heat extracted.
>>
>
>Yes, for sure. But I think less energy will be needed by the ventilation
>fans, which will partially compensate. The trains may also be more

You realise aircon needs fans to blow the cold air into the carraige. Do
you think they'll have 2 seperate sets of fans?

>But the other way these new trains will save energy is by being lighter,
>despite their higher capacity. That's mainly achieved by having fewer
>(heavy) bogies per unit of train length.

With regen braking that probably matters less. I suspect the majority of the
energy used by a tube train once its up to a reasonable speed is pushing air
through the tunnel ahead of it.

>The trains will be lighter, more energy-efficient. With advanced energy
>management and LED lighting, overall energy consumption is reduced by 20
>per cent compared with the existing fleet. They will also emit less heat
>into the tunnels than current rolling stock.

Don't believe marketing.

>The longer, more spacious, air-conditioned trains – with HVAC units
>integrated under the train - will be fully walk-through, boosting

The walk through carraiges I do remember you claiming would be impossible
on a tube train a few years back. Hows that argument going?

>Lithium Ion batteries.

Just what you want in an enclosed tunnel with limited escape routes.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:41:25 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>>>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>>>> new heat.
>>>
>>> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>>> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>>> ammount of heat extracted.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, for sure. But I think less energy will be needed by the ventilation
>> fans, which will partially compensate. The trains may also be more
>
> You realise aircon needs fans to blow the cold air into the carraige. Do
> you think they'll have 2 seperate sets of fans?

One set of lower energy fans — the chilled, drier air doesn't need to be
moved as fast.

>
>> But the other way these new trains will save energy is by being lighter,
>> despite their higher capacity. That's mainly achieved by having fewer
>> (heavy) bogies per unit of train length.
>
> With regen braking that probably matters less. I suspect the majority of the
> energy used by a tube train once its up to a reasonable speed is pushing air
> through the tunnel ahead of it.

Regen only recovers up to 70% of the kinetic energy.

>
>> The trains will be lighter, more energy-efficient. With advanced energy
>> management and LED lighting, overall energy consumption is reduced by 20
>> per cent compared with the existing fleet. They will also emit less heat
>> into the tunnels than current rolling stock.
>
> Don't believe marketing.

Are we supposed to believe an illiterate moron with no engineering
knowledge instead?

The trains will use 20% less power, while offering 10% more capacity.
That's entirely believable engineering progress in 50 years (aircraft
advance much faster).

>
>> The longer, more spacious, air-conditioned trains – with HVAC units
>> integrated under the train - will be fully walk-through, boosting
>
> The walk through carraiges I do remember you claiming would be impossible
> on a tube train a few years back. Hows that argument going?

My statements were 100% correct then, and have remained unchanged
throughout — you have a failing memory, that's getting even worse. You
better get on the waiting list for donanemab and lecanemab prescriptions as
fast as possible.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> > On 22.07.23 11:10, Coffee wrote:
> >>>
> >> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
> >> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
> >> new heat.
> >
> > The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
> > energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
> > ammount of heat extracted.
> >
>

Do we know the way in which the aircon will be controlled?

For example, I could imagine a system where the aircon only runs above
ground, cooling the train and charging up some 'cold reservoirs' (eg tanks
of water) which are then used to cool the air while the train is in the
tunnel.

That would effect a small transfer of heat from the tunnel to the outside,
cooling the underground slightly. Probably not enough to compensate for
losses in traction motors and necessary friction braking, but something.

> Yes, for sure. But I think less energy will be needed by the ventilation
> fans, which will partially compensate. The trains may also be more
> aerodynamic, thanks to open gangways (rather than open carriage end-door
> windows).

One of the design issues with fans in cooling systems is you want to make
them as efficient as possible, because the heat generated by the fan is
another heat input you have to remove. eg a well-insulated room with one
person in it might have a natural heating input of 100W body heat, but add a
100W fan and you now need 200W of cooling to keep the temperature stable.

I wonder if these trains are better insulated? Or maybe it doesn't matter
if the doors are opening every couple of minutes.

Theo

In message <u9g7qi$3p0cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:10 on Sat, 22 Jul
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>>> new heat.
>>
>> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>> ammount of heat extracted.
>
>I was going to say something similar.
>
>- You can’t win, you can only break even.
>- You can’t break even except at absolute zero.
>- You can never reach absolute zero.

A Transport of Delight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs
--
Roland Perry

On 22 Jul 2023 12:35:56 +0100 (BST), Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> > On 22.07.23 11:10, Coffee wrote:
>> >>>
>> >> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>> >> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>> >> new heat.
>> >
>> > The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>> > energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>> > ammount of heat extracted.
>> >
>>
>
>Do we know the way in which the aircon will be controlled?

I don't know if it'll be controlled by car, or for the train as a whole. I suspect the latter.

>
>For example, I could imagine a system where the aircon only runs above
>ground, cooling the train and charging up some 'cold reservoirs' (eg tanks
>of water) which are then used to cool the air while the train is in the
>tunnel.

No, it'll be conventional aircon that runs as needed. The idea of a (heavy) thermal reservoir was around for a while,
but not adopted.

>
>That would effect a small transfer of heat from the tunnel to the outside,
>cooling the underground slightly. Probably not enough to compensate for
>losses in traction motors and necessary friction braking, but something.

LU has been improving tunnel ventilation for years.

>
>> Yes, for sure. But I think less energy will be needed by the ventilation
>> fans, which will partially compensate. The trains may also be more
>> aerodynamic, thanks to open gangways (rather than open carriage end-door
>> windows).
>
>One of the design issues with fans in cooling systems is you want to make
>them as efficient as possible, because the heat generated by the fan is
>another heat input you have to remove. eg a well-insulated room with one
>person in it might have a natural heating input of 100W body heat, but add a
>100W fan and you now need 200W of cooling to keep the temperature stable.

If you're simply blowing the same, hot, humid air around, you need powerful fans to provide any perceived cooling. But
if you're blowing chilled, dry air, much less powerful fans are needed. You don't need or want a high air velocity.

>
>I wonder if these trains are better insulated? Or maybe it doesn't matter
>if the doors are opening every couple of minutes.

Yes

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On 21 Jul 2023 16:31:24 GMT
>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:45 +0100
>>
>>>
>>> Not by much looking at that picture.
>>>
>>>>
>>I was having another gander at the photo just now and something about the
>>roof line looked familiar.
>>Then I got it , Its reminiscent of the small clerestory of the 1920’s
>>-30’s standard tube stock..
>>From the 1935 stock onwards tube roofs have generally been uncluttered
>>with only the 1992 and 2009 stock differing due to the externally hung
>>doors, the 2024 stock design obviously has to accommodate externally hung
>
>Why have externally hung doors become a thing on the tube in the last 30
>years or so? Ease of maintenance? They certainly don't help with aerodynamics in
>the tunnels.

I think they open and close faster, and are more reliable. The train speeds aren't high enough for the increased wind
resistance to be a significant factor.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 10:43:00 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> You realise aircon needs fans to blow the cold air into the carraige. Do
>> you think they'll have 2 seperate sets of fans?
>
>One set of lower energy fans — the chilled, drier air doesn't need to be
>moved as fast.

They won't need 2 seperate sets of fans, end of.

>> With regen braking that probably matters less. I suspect the majority of the
>> energy used by a tube train once its up to a reasonable speed is pushing air
>
>> through the tunnel ahead of it.
>
>Regen only recovers up to 70% of the kinetic energy.

Thats a lot better than the current 0% recovered by the 73 stock.

>> Don't believe marketing.
>
>Are we supposed to believe an illiterate moron with no engineering
>knowledge instead?

I don't know, are you their spokesman now?

>The trains will use 20% less power, while offering 10% more capacity.
>That's entirely believable engineering progress in 50 years (aircraft
>advance much faster).

20% less power with probably 50% more trains + aircon = a lot more heat.

>> The walk through carraiges I do remember you claiming would be impossible
>> on a tube train a few years back. Hows that argument going?
>
>My statements were 100% correct then, and have remained unchanged

Of course they were.

"No possiblity of walk through cars on a tube train because [fatuous reason]"

"Paris has them."

"Yes but bogie positions blah blah [more fatuous reasons] gas gas blah blah
loading gauge waffle fart gas"

>throughout — you have a failing memory, that's getting even worse. You
>better get on the waiting list for donanemab and lecanemab prescriptions as
>fast as possible.

Why not do yourself a favour and admit you were wrong.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 10:43:00 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> You realise aircon needs fans to blow the cold air into the carraige. Do
>>> you think they'll have 2 seperate sets of fans?
>>
>> One set of lower energy fans — the chilled, drier air doesn't need to be
>> moved as fast.
>
> They won't need 2 seperate sets of fans, end of.
>
>>> With regen braking that probably matters less. I suspect the majority of the
>>> energy used by a tube train once its up to a reasonable speed is pushing air
>>
>>> through the tunnel ahead of it.
>>
>> Regen only recovers up to 70% of the kinetic energy.
>
> Thats a lot better than the current 0% recovered by the 73 stock.

Finally, you're beginning to understand why they need less energy!

>
>>> Don't believe marketing.
>>
>> Are we supposed to believe an illiterate moron with no engineering
>> knowledge instead?
>
> I don't know, are you their spokesman now?

You are their exemplar.

>
>> The trains will use 20% less power, while offering 10% more capacity.
>> That's entirely believable engineering progress in 50 years (aircraft
>> advance much faster).
>
> 20% less power with probably 50% more trains + aircon = a lot more heat.

The 20% less power takes account of the aircon. And there won't be 50% more
trains.

>
>>> The walk through carraiges I do remember you claiming would be impossible
>>> on a tube train a few years back. Hows that argument going?
>>
>> My statements were 100% correct then, and have remained unchanged
>
> Of course they were.
>
> "No possiblity of walk through cars on a tube train because [fatuous reason]"

The actual engineering reason. Just because you didn't understand it
doesn't make it fatuous.

>
> "Paris has them."
>
> "Yes but bogie positions blah blah [more fatuous reasons] gas gas blah blah
> loading gauge waffle fart gas"

Oh dear, Neil. Is 'fatuous reaon' your new term for any engineering
explanation you don't understand?

>
>> throughout — you have a failing memory, that's getting even worse. You
>> better get on the waiting list for donanemab and lecanemab prescriptions as
>> fast as possible.
>
> Why not do yourself a favour and admit you were wrong.

Now you're speaking to yourself — another symptom of your mental decline.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:52:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <u9g7qi$3p0cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:10 on Sat, 22 Jul
>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>>>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>>>> new heat.
>>>
>>> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>>> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>>> ammount of heat extracted.
>>
>>I was going to say something similar.
>>
>>- You can’t win, you can only break even.
>>- You can’t break even except at absolute zero.
>>- You can never reach absolute zero.
>
>A Transport of Delight:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs

Then fill the trains with mud... nothing quite like it for cooling the
blood.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 14:58:31 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Thats a lot better than the current 0% recovered by the 73 stock.
>
>Finally, you're beginning to understand why they need less energy!

Upgraded signalling, more trains.

>> 20% less power with probably 50% more trains + aircon = a lot more heat.
>
>The 20% less power takes account of the aircon. And there won't be 50% more
>trains.

The piccadilly line service is currently risible. When they rip the old
signalling out and the overpaid clowns at the front are no longer driving the
service will probably double in frequency compared to what it is at the moment
which IME is about 1 train every 4-5 mins not the every 2.5 it should be
according to the work of fiction called the timetable. They don't need 50% more
actual trains to manage that.

>> "No possiblity of walk through cars on a tube train because [fatuous reason]"
>
>
>The actual engineering reason. Just because you didn't understand it
>doesn't make it fatuous.

You claimed it would never happen because it couldn't happen so all your
self important "expertise" has been shown up for the hot air we all know that
it is.

Own your mistakes.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 14:58:31 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Thats a lot better than the current 0% recovered by the 73 stock.
>>
>> Finally, you're beginning to understand why they need less energy!
>
> Upgraded signalling, more trains.

What upgraded signalling?

>
>>> 20% less power with probably 50% more trains + aircon = a lot more heat.
>>
>> The 20% less power takes account of the aircon. And there won't be 50% more
>> trains.
>
> The piccadilly line service is currently risible. When they rip the old
> signalling out and the overpaid clowns at the front are no longer driving the
> service will probably double in frequency compared to what it is at the moment
> which IME is about 1 train every 4-5 mins not the every 2.5 it should be
> according to the work of fiction called the timetable. They don't need 50% more
> actual trains to manage that.
>
>>> "No possiblity of walk through cars on a tube train because [fatuous reason]"
>>
>>
>> The actual engineering reason. Just because you didn't understand it
>> doesn't make it fatuous.
>
> You claimed it would never happen because it couldn't happen so all your
> self important "expertise" has been shown up for the hot air we all know that
> it is.

Rubbish. I said it *could* happen, but would need articulation. That's
exactly what's happening.

You regularly claimed, at length, that articulation wouldn't be needed.
Wrong again

It would have been possible with Jacobs bogies, but the actual articulation
arrangement chosen is better.

> Own your mistakes.

Speaking to yourself again. And you have several more of them in this post.

On 22/07/2023 16:22, Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:52:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <u9g7qi$3p0cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:10 on Sat, 22 Jul
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>>>>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>>>>> new heat.
>>>>
>>>> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>>>> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>>>> ammount of heat extracted.
>>>
>>> I was going to say something similar.
>>>
>>> - You can’t win, you can only break even.
>>> - You can’t break even except at absolute zero.
>>> - You can never reach absolute zero.
>>
>> A Transport of Delight:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs
>
> Then fill the trains with mud... nothing quite like it for cooling the
> blood.

Sounds kinky! Mind you that should get the punters back!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u9g7qi$3p0cs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:10 on Sat, 22 Jul
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> The aircon is only moving the heat from one part of the underground (in
>>>> the trains) to another (the stations).  It's not actually generating any
>>>> new heat.
>>>
>>> The laws of thermodynamics would like a word. Air conditioning requires
>>> energy input, therefore the ammount of heat rejected is greater than the
>>> ammount of heat extracted.
>>
>> I was going to say something similar.
>>
>> - You can’t win, you can only break even.
>> - You can’t break even except at absolute zero.
>> - You can never reach absolute zero.
>
> A Transport of Delight:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs

Yeah - that’s entropy, man!

Sam

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

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:57 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 14:58:31 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Thats a lot better than the current 0% recovered by the 73 stock.
>>>
>>> Finally, you're beginning to understand why they need less energy!
>>
>> Upgraded signalling, more trains.
>
>What upgraded signalling?

The one to allow 36tph which was promised. Even with 27tph if they live up
to it it'll still be about double the actual current service.

>Rubbish. I said it *could* happen, but would need articulation. That's
>exactly what's happening.

You didn't and it isn't. I suggest you look at the train picture again.

>You regularly claimed, at length, that articulation wouldn't be needed.
>Wrong again

Really? So which bogies are joining 2 cars in this picture then?

https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonUnderground/comments/154337d/the_first_unit_48071
_of_the_new_2024_tube_stock/

Or are you getting a bit senile and can't remember what articulation means?
Hint - it doesn't mean walk through.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:57 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 14:58:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thats a lot better than the current 0% recovered by the 73 stock.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, you're beginning to understand why they need less energy!
>>>
>>> Upgraded signalling, more trains.
>>
>> What upgraded signalling?
>
> The one to allow 36tph which was promised.

There is no upgraded signalling.

> Even with 27tph if they live up
> to it it'll still be about double the actual current service.

https://tfl.gov.uk/tube/stop/940GZZLURSQ/russell-square-underground-station/

>
>
>> Rubbish. I said it *could* happen, but would need articulation. That's
>> exactly what's happening.
>
> You didn't and it isn't. I suggest you look at the train picture again.

I've known for a long time the type of articulation being used. You ought
to, too, apart from your senility.

>
>> You regularly claimed, at length, that articulation wouldn't be needed.
>> Wrong again
>
> Really? So which bogies are joining 2 cars in this picture then?
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonUnderground/comments/154337d/the_first_unit_48071
> _of_the_new_2024_tube_stock/
>
> Or are you getting a bit senile and can't remember what articulation means?

You don't know what it means.

> Hint - it doesn't mean walk through.

Yes, I'd expect even you to know that.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jul 2023 16:31:24 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:45 +0100
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not by much looking at that picture.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I was having another gander at the photo just now and something about the
>>> roof line looked familiar.
>>> Then I got it , Its reminiscent of the small clerestory of the 1920’s
>>> -30’s standard tube stock..
>>> From the 1935 stock onwards tube roofs have generally been uncluttered
>>> with only the 1992 and 2009 stock differing due to the externally hung
>>> doors, the 2024 stock design obviously has to accommodate externally hung
>>
>> Why have externally hung doors become a thing on the tube in the last 30
>> years or so? Ease of maintenance? They certainly don't help with aerodynamics in
>> the tunnels.
>
> I think they open and close faster, and are more reliable. The train
> speeds aren't high enough for the increased wind
> resistance to be a significant factor.
>

Also allow more room inside the train, because they don’t need an internal
door pocket.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Jul 2023 16:31:24 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:45 +0100
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by much looking at that picture.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> I was having another gander at the photo just now and something about the
>>>> roof line looked familiar.
>>>> Then I got it , Its reminiscent of the small clerestory of the 1920’s
>>>> -30’s standard tube stock..
>>>> From the 1935 stock onwards tube roofs have generally been uncluttered
>>>> with only the 1992 and 2009 stock differing due to the externally hung
>>>> doors, the 2024 stock design obviously has to accommodate externally hung
>>>
>>> Why have externally hung doors become a thing on the tube in the last 30
>>> years or so? Ease of maintenance? They certainly don't help with aerodynamics in
>>> the tunnels.
>>
>> I think they open and close faster, and are more reliable. The train
>> speeds aren't high enough for the increased wind
>> resistance to be a significant factor.
>>
>
>Also allow more room inside the train, because they don’t need an internal
>door pocket.

I was thinking as compared to plug doors.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Jul 2023 16:31:24 GMT
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:45 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not by much looking at that picture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I was having another gander at the photo just now and something about the
>>>>> roof line looked familiar.
>>>>> Then I got it , Its reminiscent of the small clerestory of the 1920’s
>>>>> -30’s standard tube stock..
>>>>> From the 1935 stock onwards tube roofs have generally been uncluttered
>>>>> with only the 1992 and 2009 stock differing due to the externally hung
>>>>> doors, the 2024 stock design obviously has to accommodate externally hung
>>>>
>>>> Why have externally hung doors become a thing on the tube in the last 30
>>>> years or so? Ease of maintenance? They certainly don't help with aerodynamics in
>>>> the tunnels.
>>>
>>> I think they open and close faster, and are more reliable. The train
>>> speeds aren't high enough for the increased wind
>>> resistance to be a significant factor.
>>>
>>
>> Also allow more room inside the train, because they don’t need an internal
>> door pocket.
>
> I was thinking as compared to plug doors.
>

Faster and more reliable. LU changed from internal sliding to external
sliding, I don't think any LU stock has used plug doors.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:55:03 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Jul 2023 16:31:24 GMT
>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:45 +0100
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not by much looking at that picture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was having another gander at the photo just now and something about the
>>>>>> roof line looked familiar.
>>>>>> Then I got it , Its reminiscent of the small clerestory of the 1920’s
>>>>>> -30’s standard tube stock..
>>>>>> From the 1935 stock onwards tube roofs have generally been uncluttered
>>>>>> with only the 1992 and 2009 stock differing due to the externally hung
>>>>>> doors, the 2024 stock design obviously has to accommodate externally hung
>>>>>
>>>>> Why have externally hung doors become a thing on the tube in the last 30
>>>>> years or so? Ease of maintenance? They certainly don't help with aerodynamics in
>>>>> the tunnels.
>>>>
>>>> I think they open and close faster, and are more reliable. The train
>>>> speeds aren't high enough for the increased wind
>>>> resistance to be a significant factor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also allow more room inside the train, because they don’t need an internal
>>> door pocket.
>>
>> I was thinking as compared to plug doors.
>>
>
>Faster and more reliable. LU changed from internal sliding to external
>sliding, I don't think any LU stock has used plug doors.

Agreed, but these trains are all-new, from a new manufacturer, not related to any previous LU trains.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 16:17:13 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Even with 27tph if they live up
>> to it it'll still be about double the actual current service.
>
>https://tfl.gov.uk/tube/stop/940GZZLURSQ/russell-square-underground-station/

Yup, 9 min gap westbound. That looks about right. I was on it today and it
certainly wasn't a 2.5 service. When the a train finally rocked up at Hyde
Park we couldn't get on it was so packed.

>> You didn't and it isn't. I suggest you look at the train picture again.
>
>I've known for a long time the type of articulation being used. You ought
>to, too, apart from your senility.

Its not articulated. Oh, and its not low floor either. HTH.

>> Or are you getting a bit senile and can't remember what articulation means?
>
>You don't know what it means.

Pot -> kettle.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 09:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Jul 2023 16:31:24 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:28:45 +0100
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by much looking at that picture.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> I was having another gander at the photo just now and something about the
>>>> roof line looked familiar.
>>>> Then I got it , Its reminiscent of the small clerestory of the 1920’s
>>>> -30’s standard tube stock..
>>>> From the 1935 stock onwards tube roofs have generally been uncluttered
>>>> with only the 1992 and 2009 stock differing due to the externally hung
>>>> doors, the 2024 stock design obviously has to accommodate externally hung
>>>
>>> Why have externally hung doors become a thing on the tube in the last 30
>>> years or so? Ease of maintenance? They certainly don't help with aerodynamics in
>>> the tunnels.
>>
>> I think they open and close faster, and are more reliable. The train
>> speeds aren't high enough for the increased wind
>> resistance to be a significant factor.
>>
>
> Also allow more room inside the train, because they don’t need an internal
> door pocket.

Or less because the whole carriage is narrower, not just the part that
contains the door pockets. Or the same because the double-walled door
pocket takes up just as much room as the single inset wall for the whole
carriage.

Or… :-)

Sam

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

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 16:17:13 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Even with 27tph if they live up
>>> to it it'll still be about double the actual current service.
>>
>> https://tfl.gov.uk/tube/stop/940GZZLURSQ/russell-square-underground-station/
>
> Yup, 9 min gap westbound. That looks about right. I was on it today and it
> certainly wasn't a 2.5 service. When the a train finally rocked up at Hyde
> Park we couldn't get on it was so packed.

Today's Sunday, with a lower frequency. They run about every 2.5 minutes on
normal days.

>
>>> You didn't and it isn't. I suggest you look at the train picture again.
>>
>> I've known for a long time the type of articulation being used. You ought
>> to, too, apart from your senility.
>
> Its not articulated. Oh, and its not low floor either. HTH.

Of course it's articulated. Just read any technical description of them,
such as
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/design-launch-of-the-new-london-underground-piccadilly-line-trains/

I know you're proud to have just heard of the Jacob's bogie, but you need
to understand that it's not synonymous with articulation. It's just one way
of achieving it, and the method chosen here is more appropriate for this
type of train.

It's lower floor, with larger gangways, than would be possible with Jacob's
bogies. It's why this is the preferred method for many low floor trams. For
example, the low floor articulated Edinburgh trams also have suspended,
wheelless sections that are supported by the adjacent sections.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Yup, 9 min gap westbound. That looks about right. I was on it today and it
>> certainly wasn't a 2.5 service. When the a train finally rocked up at Hyde
>> Park we couldn't get on it was so packed.
>
>Today's Sunday, with a lower frequency. They run about every 2.5 minutes on
>normal days.

Thats the theory. The reality is it doesn't. I use it once a week atm and
the service is as bad as it ever was.

>> Its not articulated. Oh, and its not low floor either. HTH.
>
>Of course it's articulated. Just read any technical description of them,
>such as
>https://www.railengineer.co.uk/design-launch-of-the-new-london-underground-picc
>adilly-line-trains/

They're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_car

Articulation requires a bogie joining 2 cars. This train doesn't have that
ergo its not articulated now matter how much you want to be right.

>It's lower floor, with larger gangways, than would be possible with Jacob's

Doesn't look particularly low in that picture and given the curved platforms
on the picc if they lowered it for level boarding they have to make the
carraiges a lot narrower to fit in places such as Holborn.

>bogies. It's why this is the preferred method for many low floor trams. For
>example, the low floor articulated Edinburgh trams also have suspended,
>wheelless sections that are supported by the adjacent sections.

They're not articulated. There's 4 vehicles with bogies and suspended sections.
Thats NOT articulation.