|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 29, 2010 22:19:54 GMT
I believe the original reason for calling the S stock a letter rather than an number like current Tube stock was to reinforce the idea of it being something completely different to what had gone before. But SSL stock has always (on the Combine at least) had letters, all the way back to the original A stock of 1905 (?) on the Acton - South Harrow line. Only tube stock (and only since 1938) has been known by the date. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 29, 2010 23:35:02 GMT
Technically the concept is a lot more "doable" now than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Technology like EP2002 braking and Medium Frequency converters are helping to reduce the size of equipment on the underframe. Modern materials mean fire resistant gangways can be produced using less material between the inside and outside, and advances are enabling bodies to be made with less material.
Definitely doable - but a hell of a lot of Project risk- which is why 2009TS isn't like it!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Nov 30, 2010 3:11:00 GMT
A 7car Pic/Northern/Bakerloo would be of medium length cars (52½') as of now, and would also cause headaches if its decided to split the unit anywhere in the middle. For a symmetrical formation 8x46' cars would be of equal length. However this length is not optimised for the central line, where for a decent match to current platform length 9½ cars of this length would be required.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Nov 30, 2010 9:35:19 GMT
I believe the original reason for calling the S stock a letter rather than an number like current Tube stock was to reinforce the idea of it being something completely different to what had gone before. The S Stock "S" was chosen by a certain person during the planning stage who decided that the then common use of names like "New A Stock", New C Stock" and "New D Stock" were confusing and illogical and that it was time it was stopped. He also decided that the letter convention used since the early 1900s worked well for everyone and should be continued. Someone suggested "E Stock" (for "Excellent" would you believe?) but the certain person decided that S Stock was sensible and suitable as it was going to be a universal "Subsurface" design and who was going to argue with that? There was a rare outbreak of common sense and no one did. The number was added to provide a reference for the train length (S6, S7 or S8, now just S7 or S8 of course) rather than the year of delivery, otherwise we would have had S09....S15 or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by Burkitt on Dec 5, 2010 18:29:05 GMT
Someone suggested "E Stock" (for "Excellent" would you believe?) Or simply E for "the letter that comes after D", maybe? |
|
Chris M
chatter
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 9,761
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 5, 2010 19:01:19 GMT
I remember reading prjb saying that E for "Everywhere" was briefly considered early in the project.
|
|
|
|
Post by glom on Dec 21, 2010 22:15:23 GMT
Why don't they just give them British Rail classes? It sounds cooler. "I'm riding the shiny new class 378." Sounds much better than, "I'm riding the shiny new S stock."
|
|
rincew1nd
Global Moderator
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with M
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 21, 2010 22:48:40 GMT
I'd rather "ride in a slightly decrepit 67ts(DM)" than "ride in a slightly decrepit Mark IIb(SOMB)"!
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenk on Dec 22, 2010 9:08:25 GMT
Technically the concept is a lot more "doable" now than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Technology like EP2002 braking and Medium Frequency converters are helping to reduce the size of equipment on the underframe. Modern materials mean fire resistant gangways can be produced using less material between the inside and outside, and advances are enabling bodies to be made with less material. Definitely doable - but a hell of a lot of Project risk- which is why 2009TS isn't like it! Not forgetting technology from 100% low floor trams. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 23, 2010 23:55:17 GMT
Technically the concept is a lot more "doable" now than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Technology like EP2002 braking and Medium Frequency converters are helping to reduce the size of equipment on the underframe. Modern materials mean fire resistant gangways can be produced using less material between the inside and outside, and advances are enabling bodies to be made with less material. Definitely doable - but a hell of a lot of Project risk- which is why 2009TS isn't like it! Not forgetting technology from 100% low floor trams. Trouble with most low floor trams is hydraulic brakes , great if you have a track brake as a back up ,but not so great otherwise. The fluid would be a bit of an issue , most of the fluids with acceptable fire properties are not very good in brake systems. The other issue with trams is a lack of redundancy in systems, normally they can afford to be less reliable because you can always bring in a mog and tow it away. MF convertors becoming standard fit on trams these days, other than that a lot of tram equipment that goes on the roof isn't necessarily as small as you can get it or small enough for the space train concept |
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Dec 24, 2010 16:45:05 GMT
The other trouble with low-floor trams is that they move a lot of equipment from under the floor to the roof, something not exactly feasible in a tube train.
|
|
