2024 Tube Stock (Siemens Inspiro)

[Dstock7080]

Between Hammersmith and Barons Court where the 73 and S Stock often run side by side, there's not really much in it acceleration wise, I would actually guess braking makes more of a difference!

S Stock are currently operating in manual mode at those locations and the acceleration is capped, once CBTC is enabled the acceleration rate will increase.

 

[Silent]

I thought the s stock has faster acceleration the few times I have been in one of the trains side by side from Hammersmith or Acton Town.

The 1996 stock noticeably has faster acceleration than the S8’s out of Wembley Park though. Probably the signalling though.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Between Hammersmith and Barons Court where the 73 and S Stock often run side by side, there's not really much in it acceleration wise, I would actually guess braking makes more of a difference! The S Stock looks like it can brake later, as you'd hope from a 40 year newer model

Interesting - will the 2024 stock be able to brake later even with the current signalling system?

 

[D7666]

Not to be purely argumentative. But you're wrong.

In addition to it not being the same size. There are some significant issues with depot space on the line that are not simple to solve. London Road depot cannot accept any additional length on 1-4 road,

Sorry but I do not understand.

I am trying to understand this issue but so far none of the info available adds up; indeed some of it adds up to not making any sens at all.

You now appear to be saying 1973 could not operate on the Bakerloo as the train whole length is too great to fit some sidings.

1973 c.f. 1972

According to almost every data source I can find, a 6car 73TS train is shorter than a 7car 72TS train.

1972 7 car = 113.552 m *** = 114 m rounded up to be safe
1973 6 car = 106.810 m *** = 107 m ditto

So could you explain how a 107 m long train is perceived to be too long to fit on a road that can and does take a 114 m long train ?

2024 c.f. 1972

Data in the public domain quotes 2024 as configured for the Picc. as 113.7 m = 114 m rounded = same length as 7car 72TS.

2024(Picc) =/= same length as 7car 72TS. Where is the siding / depot length problem ?

I agree there is a different, very different, problem about maintaining 2024 stock w.r.t. to lifting complete unsplit units but even if 2024 were configured for Bakerloo with one module/car less, or customised shorter modules, the unsplit unit lifting problem would still exist however long the whole set is.

*** yes I know doing this to the last mm is silly, but that is what the sources have, and if I round to nearest m someone will only come along and correct it to mm

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I believe the issue is more to do with the 1973 Stock carriages being longer and having more overhang than the 1972 Stock carriages. It's certainly an issue in the tunnels.

 

[D7666]

A

I believe the issue is more to do with the 1973 Stock carriages being longer and having more overhang than the 1972 Stock carriages. It's certainly an issue in the tunnels.

And per further upthread, it can not be that per se as a 73 car runs in the TRV train, car 666 is 73 stock.

Yes 666 has been modified, but it physically fits, it has not had anything chopped out of it length wise or overhang wise, therefore only kinematic envelope has been altered TO MAKE IT FIT.

Either there is something else or something not alluded to yet - or the traditional view on this is not right. If, for example, it is something like door positions, then this needs to be stated, but no-one has said it. That is merely an example from me. I am not saying it is not anything else - but no-one posts anyting substantive that is.

But then everyone has been saying 72 stock could never physically fit on the Central, too big, etc etc, yet they've just done it, this year, not by chopping metal off it but by altering kinematic envelope, if altering anything at all.

The main point of this thread is 2024 stock; the drift into 73 was length comparison, but people seem to be saying 2024 in Picc. config is also too long, yet not produced one iota of data to say how or why or where, and data to suggest not too long is in the public domain.

In the mean time I shall withdraw from further comment as I for one resent being told outright (further upthread) I am wrong especially when not only not presented with data allegedly to prove I am wrong but with data that is easily proven flawed.

 

[100andthirty]

D7666. Just, hopefully, to help.

The current plan for the Bakerloo version of 2024 tube stock is for it to be the same, dimensionally, as the Piccadilly version. The Picadilly line is having platform adjustments to accommodate the new train (e.g., platform hump adjustmen to suit door layout and probably some clearances) and no doubt this will be needed on the Bakerloo. The original design intent was based on the fact that 1959 tube stock operated on both lines.

Running trains with 1973 tube stock length cars is not desirable, because the increased bogie placing would make the train-platform gaps at curved platforms even bigger even if they physically fit the gauge.

 

[Nym]

A

And per further upthread, it can not be that per se as a 73 car runs in the TRV train, car 666 is 73 stock.

Yes 666 has been modified, but it physically fits, it has not had anything chopped out of it length wise or overhang wise, therefore only kinematic envelope has been altered TO MAKE IT FIT.

Either there is something else or something not alluded to yet - or the traditional view on this is not right. If, for example, it is something like door positions, then this needs to be stated, but no-one has said it. That is merely an example from me. I am not saying it is not anything else - but no-one posts anyting substantive that is.

But then everyone has been saying 72 stock could never physically fit on the Central, too big, etc etc, yet they've just done it, this year, not by chopping metal off it but by altering kinematic envelope, if altering anything at all.

The main point of this thread is 2024 stock; the drift into 73 was length comparison, but people seem to be saying 2024 in Picc. config is also too long, yet not produced one iota of data to say how or why or where, and data to suggest not too long is in the public domain.

In the mean time I shall withdraw from further comment as I for one resent being told outright (further upthread) I am wrong especially when not only not presented with data allegedly to prove I am wrong but with data that is easily proven flawed.

TRC666 has buckeye couplers with a different centre pin position on the underframe so that changes how it's pulled, held and stabilised round corners.

1972TS has bar mounted jumper cables and hoses that can cause problems on tight curves due to the mounting height of the tray coupler, when examining if these could be used on the W&C line, the tray coupler cable routes is what killed the idea from a technical standpoint.

The level of armchair experts on this topic seems to greatly outweigh the number of those who did assessments on 1973TS operating on the Bakerloo Line, and have actually worked out of the depots that we're talking about (London Road).

But TRC666 fits is not a valid argument for fleet service vehicles of the same physical size, but different profile, and different driving styles fitting onto the line.