<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> 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.

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:

“Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
neighbouring car elements.***:”

Sam

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

Am 22.07.2023 um 10:58 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> 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.

Do you have a ballpark number for that? 55cm above track level? 76cm?

Rolf

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>
> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
> neighbouring car elements.***:”

And before you ask you can check the edit history to assure yourself that’s
not a clause inserted by Recliner just to win the argument.

Sam

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

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]
>
>>
>>>> It would have been far better to aircon the stations, not the trains on deep
>>>
>>>> level tubes.
>>>
>>> It's been discussed here many times — have you really forgotten?
>>
>> 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
> your failing memory.
>
>>
>>>> Presumably you've never heard of a Jacobs bogie.
>>>
>>> Of course I have. And that's what would raise the floor. You seem to have
>>> forgotten the multiple discussions here on that subject.
>>
>> 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.

I’m confused by this assertion. In the normal description of a Jacobs
bogie - a bogie where two carriages rest on the bolster rather than just
one - there’s no obvious difference in floor height from a standard bogie.
Both types *can* be arranged with a lower well between the wheels and thus,
FSVO “low”, achieve a low floor. Even the Talgo’s arrangement has been
described as a modfied Jacobs bogie, though I do think that’s stretching
things a bit.

What am I missing?

Sam

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

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> 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.

You really ought to read the articles you cite:
'and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the neighbouring car
elements'

>
>> 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.

As I said, it's lower than would be possible with Jacob's bogies. Not
significantly lower than existing Tubes.

>
>> 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.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance. Of course they're articulated. Oh, and
learn to count, too.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 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]
>>
>>>
>>>>> It would have been far better to aircon the stations, not the trains on deep
>>>>
>>>>> level tubes.
>>>>
>>>> It's been discussed here many times — have you really forgotten?
>>>
>>> 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
>> your failing memory.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Presumably you've never heard of a Jacobs bogie.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I have. And that's what would raise the floor. You seem to have
>>>> forgotten the multiple discussions here on that subject.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I’m confused by this assertion. In the normal description of a Jacobs
> bogie - a bogie where two carriages rest on the bolster rather than just
> one - there’s no obvious difference in floor height from a standard bogie.

London Tube trains have much lower floors than is possible over standard
bogies.

> Both types *can* be arranged with a lower well between the wheels and thus,
> FSVO “low”, achieve a low floor. Even the Talgo’s arrangement has been
> described as a modfied Jacobs bogie, though I do think that’s stretching
> things a bit.

Agreed.

>
> What am I missing?

That London Tube trains have wheels protruding through the floors. That
requires low bogie pivots, which are possible in the empty bogie centres,
but not directly over powered axles.

See http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/73%20TS%20Bogie%20orig.jpg

Recliner wrote:

> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> > 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-undergr
> ound-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.
>
> You really ought to read the articles you cite:
> 'and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the neighbouring
> car elements'
>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> As I said, it's lower than would be possible with Jacob's bogies. Not
> significantly lower than existing Tubes.
>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Stop demonstrating your ignorance. Of course they're articulated. Oh,
> and learn to count, too.

One might start from the more general Wiki page at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_vehicle

The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
familiar with the articulated lorry.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:32:53 -0000 (UTC), "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> wrote:

>Recliner wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> > 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-undergr
>> ound-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.
>>
>> You really ought to read the articles you cite:
>> 'and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the neighbouring
>> car elements'
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> As I said, it's lower than would be possible with Jacob's bogies. Not
>> significantly lower than existing Tubes.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Stop demonstrating your ignorance. Of course they're articulated. Oh,
>> and learn to count, too.
>
>One might start from the more general Wiki page at
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_vehicle
>
>The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>familiar with the articulated lorry.

That's really going to confuse Neil, who has an HGV licence. Where is his supposedly mandatory Jacob's bogie in an
artic?

On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
> Recliner wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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-undergr
>> ound-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.
>>
>> You really ought to read the articles you cite:
>> 'and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the neighbouring
>> car elements'
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> As I said, it's lower than would be possible with Jacob's bogies. Not
>> significantly lower than existing Tubes.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Stop demonstrating your ignorance. Of course they're articulated. Oh,
>> and learn to count, too.
>
> One might start from the more general Wiki page at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_vehicle
>
> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
> familiar with the articulated lorry.

Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
other arrangement.

Robin

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>> Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> 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-undergr
>>> ound-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.
>>>
>>> You really ought to read the articles you cite:
>>> 'and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the neighbouring
>>> car elements'
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> As I said, it's lower than would be possible with Jacob's bogies. Not
>>> significantly lower than existing Tubes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Stop demonstrating your ignorance. Of course they're articulated. Oh,
>>> and learn to count, too.
>>
>> One might start from the more general Wiki page at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_vehicle
>>
>> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>> familiar with the articulated lorry.
>
>Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>other arrangement.

Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>>
>> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
>> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>> neighbouring car elements.***:”
>
> And before you ask you can check the edit history to assure yourself that’s
> not a clause inserted by Recliner just to win the argument.
>
>

I did wonder how recently it had been edited *rofl*

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>> Thats NOT articulation.
>
>The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>
>“Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
>are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>neighbouring car elements.***:”

Based on something from germany in 1968. Its not articulation.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:03:31 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>Am 22.07.2023 um 10:58 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> Tube trains floors arn't low in the tram sense, they're just lower than
>> mainline stock.
>
>Do you have a ballpark number for that? 55cm above track level? 76cm?

68cm apparently so a long way from being low floor.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:18:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> They're not articulated. There's 4 vehicles with bogies and suspended
>sections.
>> Thats NOT articulation.
>
>Stop demonstrating your ignorance. Of course they're articulated. Oh, and
>learn to count, too.

No they're not and it really doesn't matter if its 3 or 4.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:38:55 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:32:53 -0000 (UTC), "David Jones"
><dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> wrote:
>>One might start from the more general Wiki page at
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_vehicle
>>
>>The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>>familiar with the articulated lorry.
>
>That's really going to confuse Neil, who has an HGV licence. Where is his
>supposedly mandatory Jacob's bogie in an
>artic?

You mean where the 5th wheel and front of the trailer is above the drive wheels?
Obviously its articulated, the clue is in the name *semi* trailer.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>> familiar with the articulated lorry.
>
>Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>other arrangement.

Which is why they're generally called bendy buses , not articulated buses.
Its a bus pulling (or being pushed by) a trailer.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>other arrangement.
>
>Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.

Got it in one.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Thats NOT articulation.
>>
>> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>>
>> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
>> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>> neighbouring car elements.***:”
>
> Based on something from germany in 1968. Its not articulation.
>
>

The Beyer Garrett steam Loco design is universally described as being
articulated and isn’t much different having two engines on wheeled units
supporting the boiler,firebox and cab mounted on a bridging section from
pivots.

GH

On 24.07.23 17:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>>> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>>> familiar with the articulated lorry.
>>
>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>> other arrangement.
>
> Which is why they're generally called bendy buses

By whom? Certainly nobody in the transportation industry

> not articulated buses.

Google produces 12.7 million hits for "articulated bus" and 8.7 million
hits for "bendy bus".

> Its a bus pulling (or being pushed by) a trailer.

A bus trailer is something different entirely, for example [1]. An
articulated bus can not be separated into parts that can function
independently from one another. A bus trailer can be detatched and the
bus operate on its own without the trailer.

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Bus_trailer_in_Lauterbrunnen_%282018-09-05_12.00.03%29.jpg

Robin

On 24 Jul 2023 15:55:42 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Thats NOT articulation.
>>>
>>> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>>>
>>> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars
>which
>>> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>>> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>>> neighbouring car elements.***:”
>>
>> Based on something from germany in 1968. Its not articulation.
>>
>>
>
>The Beyer Garrett steam Loco design is universally described as being
>articulated and isn’t much different having two engines on wheeled units
>supporting the boiler,firebox and cab mounted on a bridging section from
>pivots.

Articulation means the weight is mounted over the wheels so yes, that would
be articulated. The suspended cars in this new train are just glorified
drawbars.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Thats NOT articulation.
>>
>> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>>
>> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
>> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>> neighbouring car elements.***:”
>
> Based on something from germany in 1968. Its not articulation.

So because a foreigner used the term many years ago it’s no longer true?
Fascinating.

You claim something, you cite an article in support that actually claims
the opposite. I think you lose.

Sam

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

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 24.07.23 17:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>>>> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>>>> familiar with the articulated lorry.
>>>
>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>> other arrangement.
>>
>> Which is why they're generally called bendy buses
>
>By whom? Certainly nobody in the transportation industry
>
>> not articulated buses.
>
>Google produces 12.7 million hits for "articulated bus" and 8.7 million
>hits for "bendy bus".
>
>> Its a bus pulling (or being pushed by) a trailer.
>
>A bus trailer is something different entirely, for example [1]. An
>articulated bus can not be separated into parts that can function
>independently from one another. A bus trailer can be detatched and the
>bus operate on its own without the trailer.

Take away the flexible cover between the 2 parts of a bendy bus and you'll
find its just a posh trailer.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>> other arrangement.
>>
>> Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.
>
> Got it in one.

So please can you tell us your unambiguous definition of “articulated” -
different definitions as applied to road and rail vehicles if necessary.
Thank you.

Sam

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

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2023 15:55:42 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Thats NOT articulation.
>>>>
>>>> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>>>>
>>>> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars
>> which
>>>> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>>>> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>>>> neighbouring car elements.***:”
>>>
>>> Based on something from germany in 1968. Its not articulation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Beyer Garrett steam Loco design is universally described as being
>> articulated and isn’t much different having two engines on wheeled units
>> supporting the boiler,firebox and cab mounted on a bridging section from
>> pivots.
>
> Articulation means the weight is mounted over the wheels so yes, that would
> be articulated. The suspended cars in this new train are just glorified
> drawbars.

So what supports the weight of a drawbar?

Sam

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

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:02:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Thats NOT articulation.
>>
>> The first sentence of the Wikipedia article you quote, my emphasis added:
>>
>> “Articulated cars are rail vehicles which consist of a number of cars which
>> are semi-permanently attached to each other and share common Jacobs bogies
>> or axles ***and/or have car elements without axles suspended by the
>> neighbouring car elements.***:”
>
> Based on something from germany in 1968.

It hasn't changed its definition in the many decades since articulated
carriages were invented.

> Its not articulation.

Neil, you should be thanking us for a free education, not repeatedly
demonstrating your illiteracy and ignorance.