Dstock7080
Administrator
we said goodbye to R Stock, 30yrs ago
Posts: 1,940
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 20, 2009 12:56:06 GMT
I see that Alstom have revealed their new "X'Trapolis" train as a possible contender for the Thameslink and CrossRail contracts: tinyurl.com/nprputIt wants to use the same "bogie offset articulation technology" as the proposed 'EVO1' design for the new Bakerloo Line trains: Alstom's X'Trapolis: tinyurl.com/lserw5Bakerloo EVO1: tinyurl.com/lc4eg8
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,623
|
Post by Ben on Sept 20, 2009 16:44:44 GMT
They both look disgusting.
I have a leaflet somewhere from about 5 years ago that went to engineering schools 6th form design students which was about a competition to design the crossrail trains. It was a legit thing; involved Crossrail ltd, the LT museum, TfL. Must have had quite a take up across the capital. I never did design at school but I know a lot of people who did and some of them entered. Anyway, my point is that even the scrawlings of a bunch of spotty-faced 16/17 year olds still beat the design of a multi-national company in terms of aesthetics.
Why is this bogie offset thing so popular now? Whats wrong with articulation and placing the bogie centrally under the carriage ends?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 20, 2009 18:06:05 GMT
Just when I thought modern trains couldn't get any uglier...
"X'Trapolis" - they can't even spell correctly.
I can just imagine the marketing types that came up with that name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 20, 2009 18:07:34 GMT
Not many passenger doors either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex F. on Sept 20, 2009 18:10:36 GMT
They both look disgusting. Why?? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 20, 2009 18:25:37 GMT
I see that Alstom have revealed their new "X'Trapolis" train as a possible contender for the Thameslink and CrossRail contracts: tinyurl.com/nprputIs it really nessessary for these trains to have a streamlined front? They aren't going to run on high speed cross country lines and the streamlined front is a waste of space in tunnel platforms. The door arrangement also looks wrong, with the two sets of doors together, then a wide gap between the next two sets of doors.
|
|
|
|
Post by maurits on Sept 20, 2009 19:11:01 GMT
I like them, a nice and fresh design. By the way, having a streamlined nose makes perfect sense considering these trains will be expected to reach 160 KM/h after all.
The Financial Times has some background on some of the design choices:
|
|
|
|
Post by cityboy on Sept 20, 2009 20:57:09 GMT
To me the train look like a cross between the newest Hong Kong MTR and regional trains used in Holland. If Crossrail runs as well as either of those services, I won't complain too much! While I'm not a fan of the aesthetics, ultimately I am more concerned with practicality and comfort. From the look of it, both will be in abundance in this design.
I do agree that the doors need to be spaced a little better though. Possibly like the proposed design in the diagram of the EVO1 for the Bakerloo.
|
|
Chris M
chatter
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 9,746
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 21, 2009 2:39:19 GMT
Is it really nessessary for these trains to have a streamlined front? They aren't going to run on high speed cross country lines and the streamlined front is a waste of space in tunnel platforms. My impression from the article was that the fronts are combined streamlining and crumple zones.
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 21, 2009 5:09:34 GMT
for Thameslink, where they want 12, 20m cars, the X'trapolis design has 15 cars (due to the articulation each car is shorter). ths delivers 30 sets of doors - 6 more than on a conventional train.
|
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Sept 21, 2009 9:42:11 GMT
I saw this article published in the latest digital issue of the Railway Herald.
If by fact the design of the bogies is more efficient, cost-effective, weight reducing (which leads to better performance) than "user opinion" is irrelevant.
At the end of the day when a train enters a platform about 2 in 100 people will actually "care" and pay attention to the mechanical side of the train. 5 in 100 people will "care" about where the doors are and 10 in 100 people will actually "care" about the interior design of the stock.
If the train is a step forward in engineering which gives many benefits than it should be praised for the "effort" in making it so.
I think the design is quite interesting although most of the people on this forum do enjoy quite a good old rant, very quick to point out the negatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by mackenzieblu on Oct 5, 2009 14:57:31 GMT
At the end of the day when a train enters a platform about 2 in 100 people will actually "care" and pay attention to the mechanical side of the train. 5 in 100 people will "care" about where the doors are and 10 in 100 people will actually "care" about the interior design of the stock. I think the design is quite interesting although most of the people on this forum do enjoy quite a good old rant, very quick to point out the negatives. I have to disagree here, people are interested about the doors. These trains are currently aimed at the Thameslink replacement stock (NXEMU's) with the hope Crossrail will pick the design too. The first one will be in service before the Crossrail order is placed s Im sure TfL will be looking at FCC's trial running of the units. Well actually I know they will. I think most people would like to have the ability to get off the train easily than a really good looking train and I think these trains offer that. The fact they get closer to curve platforms is a big bonus Alstom need to make more of especially for wheelchair users and customers with buggys. Just remember at the moment the bids are in for Thameslink so all three bidders can't talk about the specs of actual trains yet but give a general view. And that what this is, the basic train which can be tailored to the users needs, all the ends are purely possible verisons and are likely to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeflight on Oct 6, 2009 9:58:19 GMT
To be quite honest, I just wish the rail industry would stick with trains (and other technology such as signalling) that have a tried, tested and trusted record of reliability instead of taking leaps with "radical" new designs that lead us to the inevitable lengthy "teething troubles" - which eventually necessisate endless line-closures to put right what should have been right from the start had ambition not exceeded practicality.
|
|
Oracle
chatter
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 6, 2009 10:09:59 GMT
The previous suggestion was achieved with the Class 312 derivative of the 310, for GNR electrification services. At the time of introduction they were said in the railway press to be very reliable, after the basic design had been tried and tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenk on Oct 7, 2009 11:44:55 GMT
To be quite honest, I just wish the rail industry would stick with trains (and other technology such as signalling) that have a tried, tested and trusted record of reliability instead of taking leaps with "radical" new designs that lead us to the inevitable lengthy "teething troubles" Such as steam trains?  Short car, wider bodied trains are already tried and tested.
|
|