https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>

The photo, of course, shows the jacked-up train on its way from the factory
to the test site, not actually being tested in its normal running
configuration. I assume Siemens has had to equip the test track with fourth
rail?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:21:10 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673

Thats a rather long looking train. I wonder if its 1.5 trains because I'd
be surprised if that fitted in your average piccadilly line platform. Unless
they're going back to the days of 7 car stockS when part of the front and
rear cars would be sitting in tunnel when the train was in a station though
how that would work with OPO is anyones guess.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:37:56 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>
>
>The photo, of course, shows the jacked-up train on its way from the factory
>to the test site, not actually being tested in its normal running
>configuration. I assume Siemens has had to equip the test track with fourth
>rail?

Doesn't look jacked up to me.

I can't believe they went through with those small windows. They not only
look fugly but will restrict views into and out of the train at busy times.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:21:10 +0100
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>
> Thats a rather long looking train. I wonder if its 1.5 trains because I'd
> be surprised if that fitted in your average piccadilly line platform. Unless
> they're going back to the days of 7 car stockS when part of the front and
> rear cars would be sitting in tunnel when the train was in a station though
> how that would work with OPO is anyones guess.

No, it's one train (count the doors or bogies).

At 113.7 m, it's a little longer than the short (106.8 m) 6-car 73TS, but
will fit in the platforms.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:59:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:21:10 +0100
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>
>> Thats a rather long looking train. I wonder if its 1.5 trains because I'd
>> be surprised if that fitted in your average piccadilly line platform. Unless
>> they're going back to the days of 7 car stockS when part of the front and
>> rear cars would be sitting in tunnel when the train was in a station though
>> how that would work with OPO is anyones guess.
>
>No, it's one train (count the doors or bogies).
>
>At 113.7 m, it's a little longer than the short (106.8 m) 6-car 73TS, but
>will fit in the platforms.

Must be the camera angle that makes it look very long. Even so, an extra
7 metres of train is going to be a squeeze at some stations.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:59:23 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:21:10 +0100
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>>
>>> Thats a rather long looking train. I wonder if its 1.5 trains because I'd
>>> be surprised if that fitted in your average piccadilly line platform. Unless
>>> they're going back to the days of 7 car stockS when part of the front and
>>> rear cars would be sitting in tunnel when the train was in a station though
>>> how that would work with OPO is anyones guess.
>>
>> No, it's one train (count the doors or bogies).
>>
>> At 113.7 m, it's a little longer than the short (106.8 m) 6-car 73TS, but
>> will fit in the platforms.
>
> Must be the camera angle that makes it look very long. Even so, an extra
> 7 metres of train is going to be a squeeze at some stations.

It's tailor-made to fit the Piccadilly (and Bakerloo) platforms. A
possible Central Line version will be longer.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>
>
> The photo, of course, shows the jacked-up train on its way from the factory
> to the test site, not actually being tested in its normal running
> configuration. I assume Siemens has had to equip the test track with fourth
> rail?
>

It's interesting to compare in detail the two sets of pictures, the ones
released today and the ones we've seen earlier. Comparing various details
around the wheels, under the doors, and the thing on the bogie which I take
to be 3rd rail pickup, I think the ride height might actually be the same,
but disguised by addition of fairings above the bogies.

For example:

<https://twitter.com/tfl/status/1686270576556396544>

vs.

<https://twitter.com/mrtimdunn/status/1681806783042449408>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>>
>>
>> The photo, of course, shows the jacked-up train on its way from the factory
>> to the test site, not actually being tested in its normal running
>> configuration. I assume Siemens has had to equip the test track with fourth
>> rail?
>>
>
> It's interesting to compare in detail the two sets of pictures, the ones
> released today and the ones we've seen earlier. Comparing various details
> around the wheels, under the doors, and the thing on the bogie which I take
> to be 3rd rail pickup, I think the ride height might actually be the same,
> but disguised by addition of fairings above the bogies.
>
> For example:
>
> <https://twitter.com/tfl/status/1686270576556396544>
>
> vs.
>
> <https://twitter.com/mrtimdunn/status/1681806783042449408>

I still have the impression that the second train is jacked up, but I've
not yet had a chance to superimpose them in a photo editor.

One other oddity: it looks like some doors are almost over bogies. Don't
the wheels protrude through the floor, and need to be hidden under seat
boxes?

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>>
>>
>> The photo, of course, shows the jacked-up train on its way from the factory
>> to the test site, not actually being tested in its normal running
>> configuration. I assume Siemens has had to equip the test track with fourth
>> rail?
>>
>
> It's interesting to compare in detail the two sets of pictures, the ones
> released today and the ones we've seen earlier. Comparing various details
> around the wheels, under the doors, and the thing on the bogie which I take
> to be 3rd rail pickup, I think the ride height might actually be the same,
> but disguised by addition of fairings above the bogies.
>
> For example:
>
> <https://twitter.com/tfl/status/1686270576556396544>
>
> vs.
>
> <https://twitter.com/mrtimdunn/status/1681806783042449408>
>

I've now had a chance to compare the pictures on a large screen, and I
think you're right. It's the same train, and the rife height hasn't
changed. What is different is the presence or absence of removable body
panels above the bogies. What we still don't know is whether this is the
final ride height on LU metals, or raised for clearance while being moved
on UIC gauge tracks.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 16:18:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:59:23 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:21:10 +0100
>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>>>
>>>> Thats a rather long looking train. I wonder if its 1.5 trains because I'd
>>>> be surprised if that fitted in your average piccadilly line platform.
>Unless
>>>> they're going back to the days of 7 car stockS when part of the front and
>>>> rear cars would be sitting in tunnel when the train was in a station though
>
>>>> how that would work with OPO is anyones guess.
>>>
>>> No, it's one train (count the doors or bogies).
>>>
>>> At 113.7 m, it's a little longer than the short (106.8 m) 6-car 73TS, but
>>> will fit in the platforms.
>>
>> Must be the camera angle that makes it look very long. Even so, an extra
>> 7 metres of train is going to be a squeeze at some stations.
>
>It's tailor-made to fit the Piccadilly (and Bakerloo) platforms. A
>possible Central Line version will be longer.

If tailor made means having to resite all the end of platform staff gates so
they don't block off half of the front car then yes, perhaps they are.

eRecliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66371673
>>>>
>>>
>>> The photo, of course, shows the jacked-up train on its way from the factory
>>> to the test site, not actually being tested in its normal running
>>> configuration. I assume Siemens has had to equip the test track with fourth
>>> rail?
>>>
>>
>> It's interesting to compare in detail the two sets of pictures, the ones
>> released today and the ones we've seen earlier. Comparing various details
>> around the wheels, under the doors, and the thing on the bogie which I take
>> to be 3rd rail pickup, I think the ride height might actually be the same,
>> but disguised by addition of fairings above the bogies.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/tfl/status/1686270576556396544>
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/mrtimdunn/status/1681806783042449408>
>>
>
> I've now had a chance to compare the pictures on a large screen, and I
> think you're right. It's the same train, and the rife height hasn't
> changed. What is different is the presence or absence of removable body
> panels above the bogies. What we still don't know is whether this is the
> final ride height on LU metals, or raised for clearance while being moved
> on UIC gauge tracks.
>
>

One of the earlier photos showed the train passing a platform where a lot
of the bogies and wheels etc was much more visible ,at the time some
suggestions were made it may have been on temporary accommodation bogies a
thought that I was never convinced by as why would things like shoe mounts
be mounted on such bogies.
I think any raising if any has been done using the suspension (would it be
air bag ? set to its maximum
and still think the inside bearing design gives a view of the wheels we are
not used to creating an optical illusion that the train is a lot higher
than it would be in service.
Th aforementioned platform possibly exaggerates this as I believe it could
be one of the older style of Continental platforms which compared to UK
ones were much lower some not being much more substantial than a bit of
pavement.
It was one of those things that at one time made the Continental railways
so different to ours and you really knew yo were somewhere foreign.

GH