Why isn't Victoria Line stock walk through ?

[TRAX]

Earlier than that. The 1970s-designed Tyne and Wear Metro stock is walk-through.

I view the Tyne & Wear stock as light rail, not metro, and so does a lot of the industry.

 

[whoosh]

2009 stock is probably cheaper than Space Train which was a walkthrough train proposed at one point:

Space Train to boost Tube capacity

Richard Hope examines a plan to lift peak throughput on London Underground's Victoria line to 60 000 passengers an hour

www.railwaygazette.com

 

[100andthirty]

Space Train would have required very considerable development both as a train and how it would be integrated into the overall system. There were very significant engineering and integration issues to overcome. Just two examples of the integration issues:
1) the larger profile body would have changed the ventilation system and level of draughts on stations quite significantly
2) the transition to third and fourth rail to the overhead conductor would have been challenging. There was also the issue of providing enough height in station to avoid it being too easy to touch the conductor, and to deliver an appropriate gradient for the conductor as it transitions from tunnel height to station height.

The Space Train ideas were stifled by the PPP which focused on delivery of low risk solutions - even though it was billed as delivering innovation!

In the end after a while where no development took place, LU's development team preferred to retain the floor height at a nominal 700 mm and keep space underneath to allow for air conditioning kit to be fitted.

 

[Mikey C]

Space Train would have required very considerable development both as a train and how it would be integrated into the overall system. There were very significant engineering and integration issues to overcome. Just two examples of the integration issues:
1) the larger profile body would have changed the ventilation system and level of draughts on stations quite significantly
2) the transition to third and fourth rail to the overhead conductor would have been challenging. There was also the issue of providing enough height in station to avoid it being too easy to touch the conductor, and to deliver an appropriate gradient for the conductor as it transitions from tunnel height to station height.

The Space Train ideas were stifled by the PPP which focused on delivery of low risk solutions - even though it was billed as delivering innovation!

In the end after a while where no development took place, LU's development team preferred to retain the floor height at a nominal 700 mm and keep space underneath to allow for air conditioning kit to be fitted.

And a massive investment for a train design which couldn't be used elsewhere on the deep network anyway

 

[swt_passenger]

Space Train would have required very considerable development both as a train and how it would be integrated into the overall system. There were very significant engineering and integration issues to overcome. Just two examples of the integration issues:
1) the larger profile body would have changed the ventilation system and level of draughts on stations quite significantly
2) the transition to third and fourth rail to the overhead conductor would have been challenging. There was also the issue of providing enough height in station to avoid it being too easy to touch the conductor, and to deliver an appropriate gradient for the conductor as it transitions from tunnel height to station height.

The Space Train ideas were stifled by the PPP which focused on delivery of low risk solutions - even though it was billed as delivering innovation!

In the end after a while where no development took place, LU's development team preferred to retain the floor height at a nominal 700 mm and keep space underneath to allow for air conditioning kit to be fitted.

Interesting point in the space train paper linked earlier is that even in the late 90s LU were already assuming a standing capacity of 8 per sq m in the door areas, and 6 per sq m between the seats. Yet when mentioned over the last few years I recall a certain amount of surprise...

 

[100andthirty]

Interesting point in the space train paper linked earlier is that even in the late 90s LU were already assuming a standing capacity of 8 per sq m in the door areas, and 6 per sq m between the seats. Yet when mentioned over the last few years I recall a certain amount of surprise...

LU used 8 per sq m as the crush load capacity, 5 per sq m for full load. the 6 per sq m in seating areas was generally approximated to 8 per sq m after allowing 300 mm in front of each seat riser for feet.
5 per sq m was used for planning and performance measurement and the 8 per sq m was used for safety calculations (eg emergency braking and structural design.

And a massive investment for a train design which couldn't be used elsewhere on the deep network anyway

The intent was that the principles of the Space Train would be used throughout the tube network. As always the structure profile of the body would have been adjusted to the constraints of the historic infrastructure. Anyway it's all history now.

 

[transmanche]

I view the Tyne & Wear stock as light rail, not metro, and so does a lot of the industry.

Tomato, tomato.

 

[bramling]

I view the Tyne & Wear stock as light rail, not metro, and so does a lot of the industry.

That's an interesting question of definition. There's certainly a blur between metro and light rail, as systems like T&W and DLR have full railway signalling systems, which interestingly so did Metrolink originally on all but the city centre section.

Whilst T&W may have vehicles more akin to light rail, I'd say the system as a whole is more heavy rail. Indeed the fact that it runs on NR infrastructure to Sunderland would tend to further this.

However as there's no completely definitive set of criteria there's probably no right or wrong answer to this one.

 

[100andthirty]

Just to complete the blurring between Metro and Light Rail, look at the plan for DLR's new stock - 5-car non-articulated bogie vehicles.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Just to complete the blurring between Metro and Light Rail, look at the plan for DLR's new stock - 5-car non-articulated bogie vehicles.

Is the new DLR stock non-articulated then? I'd missed that bit - I'd thought it was simply going to be a longer equivalent to their present stock!

 

[rebmcr]

DLR have full railway signalling systems

DLR has always had a dedicated, custom signalling system, since 1987. Railway systems offering ATO have only just become possible in the last year.

 

[edwin_m]

DLR has always had a dedicated, custom signalling system, since 1987. Railway systems offering ATO have only just become possible in the last year.

I think the point is that it's a signaled railway not line of sight. The system currently used in similar to that on the Northern Line and the sub-surface lines use a later version of the same system. Neither of those is light rail.

The problem here is that there is a spectrum of different solutions, not a firm distinction between light and heavy rail as there is in Germany. To me light rail uses a lighter vehicle that doesn't meet heavy rail structural standards but is capable of tighter curves and steeper gradient. Tramway implies line of sight operation at least in part. All tramways are light rail but not all light rail is tramway. But other definitions are available...

 

[philthetube]

I think the point is that it's a signaled railway not line of sight. The system currently used in similar to that on the Northern Line and the sub-surface lines use a later version of the same system. Neither of those is light rail.

The problem here is that there is a spectrum of different solutions, not a firm distinction between light and heavy rail as there is in Germany. To me light rail uses a lighter vehicle that doesn't meet heavy rail structural standards but is capable of tighter curves and steeper gradient. Tramway implies line of sight operation at least in part. All tramways are light rail but not all light rail is tramway. But other definitions are available...

So why is the tube not light rail.

 

[edwin_m]

So why is the tube not light rail.

Because it is - approximately - to heavy rail structural and track geometry standards. Or at least a lot heavier than T&W, Docklands or tramways.

 

[100andthirty]

There are several grades of railway sort of semi-defined:

High Speed
Conventional "Heavy Rail"
Metro
Light Rail
Tramways

It is probably the Germans who defined them best.

In UK and Europe, the first two are covered by regulations and directives aimed at standardising railways thoughout Europe. Clearly with differing structural and track gauges, different electrification and signalling systems, this won't happen overnight! Most European states and the UK have exempted Metro, Light Rail and Tramways from these regulations and standards.

There is much blurring of Metro, Light Rail and Tramway. One might say that tramways are the only railways that run down the street, but you don't have t go far to find what might otherwise be called Light rail doing so. In the USA, there are fairly frequent freight trains that run down the main street - some of them up to 2.5km long (I forget which town, but saw a video on YouTube). Also some funiculars are referred to as tramways.

I learnt long ago that it's best not to get hung up by particular designations.

 

[rebmcr]

Because it is - approximately - to heavy rail structural and track geometry standards. Or at least a lot heavier than T&W, Docklands or tramways.

What about Metrolink then?

 

[edwin_m]

What about Metrolink then?

Tramway (except the remaining railway signaled bit) and light rail.

 

[507 001]

What about Metrolink then?

It was always intended that Metrolink be Light Rail with some tramway sections. Unfortunately over the last few years the lines have become much more blurred, thanks to the ORR, and nobody really knows what it is anymore.