<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:52:46 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:14:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:06:37 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:39:19 GMT
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As far as I can tell from the pictures, in both cases the windows start
>>>>>> just above the seat backs, and end at the point when the body starts to
>>>>>> curve inwards. So the heights will be about the same. But the new windows
>>>>>> are framed by thick, square pillars that look structural and carry cables
>>>>>> and cool air ducts from the aircon units under the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoff Marshal has done a good video about the train. Even he questions the
>>>>> size of the windows but in the comments someone says like you that the
>>>> pillars
>>>>> are for aircon ducts. I'm surprised thats the best solution they could
>> some
>>>>> up with for ducting but there we go.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlP9cJOHEEc
>>>>
>>>> How else would you get cooled air from below the seats to the vents in the
>>>> ceiling?
>>>
>>> You have one fat duct going up where the border between the windows is in the
>>> 73 stock and then split it above. Simple.
>>
>> You'd then need more ducting along the ceiling. Better to have two smaller
>> ducts.
>
> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than necessary.

Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:02 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
>> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than
>necessary.
>
>Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.

Why worse? You think the air is going to suddenly heat up so much as to
be ineffective by having to travel an extra metre or 2?

Also having AC didn't require the S stock to have tiny windows. They're
"solution" appears to be half assed and done for cost reasons.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:02 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
>>> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than
>> necessary.
>>
>> Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.
>
> Why worse? You think the air is going to suddenly heat up so much as to
> be ineffective by having to travel an extra metre or 2?

You would include a very wide pillar that completely blocked the outside
view from a number of seats, thus achieving the exact opposite of what you
want. The fans would also have to be more powerful, making the trains less
energy efficient and the aircon more noisy.

>
> Also having AC didn't require the S stock to have tiny windows. They're
> "solution" appears to be half assed and done for cost reasons.

I think the aircon units are in the S stock roofs. Try doing that in a Tube
train!

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:55:14 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:02 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
>>>> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.
>>
>> Why worse? You think the air is going to suddenly heat up so much as to
>> be ineffective by having to travel an extra metre or 2?
>
>You would include a very wide pillar that completely blocked the outside
>view from a number of seats, thus achieving the exact opposite of what you
>want. The fans would also have to be more powerful, making the trains less
>energy efficient and the aircon more noisy.

Its air, not water. It doesn't need a huge pipe. High pressure tyre inflators
manage with something 1cm in diameter.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:55:14 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:02 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
>>>>> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than
>>>> necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.
>>>
>>> Why worse? You think the air is going to suddenly heat up so much as to
>>> be ineffective by having to travel an extra metre or 2?
>>
>> You would include a very wide pillar that completely blocked the outside
>> view from a number of seats, thus achieving the exact opposite of what you
>> want. The fans would also have to be more powerful, making the trains less
>> energy efficient and the aircon more noisy.
>
> Its air, not water. It doesn't need a huge pipe. High pressure tyre inflators
> manage with something 1cm in diameter.

So now you want to compress the cooled air??

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:51:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:55:14 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:02 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
>>>>>> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than
>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.
>>>>
>>>> Why worse? You think the air is going to suddenly heat up so much as to
>>>> be ineffective by having to travel an extra metre or 2?
>>>
>>> You would include a very wide pillar that completely blocked the outside
>>> view from a number of seats, thus achieving the exact opposite of what you
>>> want. The fans would also have to be more powerful, making the trains less
>>> energy efficient and the aircon more noisy.
>>
>> Its air, not water. It doesn't need a huge pipe. High pressure tyre inflators
>
>> manage with something 1cm in diameter.
>
>So now you want to compress the cooled air??

Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
using HCFCs.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:51:04 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:55:14 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:02 GMT
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Better for whom? Not the passengers who'll have to squint out of small
>>>>>>> portholes. Their solution gives the impression of cheap rather than
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your suggestion would be cheaper, but worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why worse? You think the air is going to suddenly heat up so much as to
>>>>> be ineffective by having to travel an extra metre or 2?
>>>>
>>>> You would include a very wide pillar that completely blocked the outside
>>>> view from a number of seats, thus achieving the exact opposite of what you
>>>> want. The fans would also have to be more powerful, making the trains less
>>>> energy efficient and the aircon more noisy.
>>>
>>> Its air, not water. It doesn't need a huge pipe. High pressure tyre inflators
>>
>>> manage with something 1cm in diameter.
>>
>> So now you want to compress the cooled air??
>
> Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
> below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
> using HCFCs.

By now, your ugly, inconvenient solution is costing more than the much
better solution the real engineers have implemented. It's a good thing you
make bugs, not trains.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:44:52 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
>> below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
>> using HCFCs.
>
>By now, your ugly, inconvenient solution is costing more than the much
>better solution the real engineers have implemented. It's a good thing you
>make bugs, not trains.

Better for the accountants maybe, not the passengers. But we all know they
don't count otherwise they wouldn't have replaced all the seats in the 73
stock with fabric covered concrete in the last few years.

Also I'm sure the AC in the new trains will work well enough to keep people
happy while the train is stuck in yet another tunnel due to the knackered
signalling which is what actually needed to be replaced, not the trains.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:44:52 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
>>> below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
>>> using HCFCs.
>>
>> By now, your ugly, inconvenient solution is costing more than the much
>> better solution the real engineers have implemented. It's a good thing you
>> make bugs, not trains.
>
> Better for the accountants maybe, not the passengers. But we all know they
> don't count otherwise they wouldn't have replaced all the seats in the 73
> stock with fabric covered concrete in the last few years.

Yes, I wonder what happened to the comfortable old cushions?

> Also I'm sure the AC in the new trains will work well enough to keep people
> happy while the train is stuck in yet another tunnel due to the knackered
> signalling which is what actually needed to be replaced, not the trains.

Both need replacing, but so far there's only enough funding for the first
batch of trains. If money can be found to replace the old signalling, then
the second batch of trains can be ordered to take advantage of it. The
Bakerloo order needs to be placed soon, too, or the new Goole factory will
be shut.

The good news is that TfL ridership is rising, so fare revenues should be
booming. But government assistance is still needed for large capital
investments.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tfl-tube-warning-following-autumn-164958579.html

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:45:47 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Better for the accountants maybe, not the passengers. But we all know they
>> don't count otherwise they wouldn't have replaced all the seats in the 73
>> stock with fabric covered concrete in the last few years.
>
>Yes, I wonder what happened to the comfortable old cushions?

They've probably saved a few in the Acton Depot for Tim Dunn to coo over next
time he's there.

Presumably they were life expired in some way and instead of coughing up to
replace them LU put hard plastic/metal/whatever underneath instead. Just what
you want on a line where a substantial proportion of the ridership goes all the
way out to Heathrow.

>> Also I'm sure the AC in the new trains will work well enough to keep people
>> happy while the train is stuck in yet another tunnel due to the knackered
>> signalling which is what actually needed to be replaced, not the trains.
>
>Both need replacing, but so far there's only enough funding for the first
>batch of trains. If money can be found to replace the old signalling, then

Hah, yeah, if. The northern line got new trains in the late 90s. The
signalling wasn't upgraded until 15 years later so I won't hold my breath.

On 24/11/2023 16:45, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:44:52 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
>>>> below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
>>>> using HCFCs.
>>>
>>> By now, your ugly, inconvenient solution is costing more than the much
>>> better solution the real engineers have implemented. It's a good thing you
>>> make bugs, not trains.
>>
>> Better for the accountants maybe, not the passengers. But we all know they
>> don't count otherwise they wouldn't have replaced all the seats in the 73
>> stock with fabric covered concrete in the last few years.
>
> Yes, I wonder what happened to the comfortable old cushions?
>
>> Also I'm sure the AC in the new trains will work well enough to keep people
>> happy while the train is stuck in yet another tunnel due to the knackered
>> signalling which is what actually needed to be replaced, not the trains.
>
> Both need replacing, but so far there's only enough funding for the first
> batch of trains. If money can be found to replace the old signalling, then
> the second batch of trains can be ordered to take advantage of it. The
> Bakerloo order needs to be placed soon, too, or the new Goole factory will
> be shut.
>
> The good news is that TfL ridership is rising, so fare revenues should be
> booming. But government assistance is still needed for large capital
> investments.
>
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tfl-tube-warning-following-autumn-164958579.html

Riding around in both the morning and evening peaks in central London on
Wednesday, the system seemed rather less busy than I remembered from a
past life.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/11/2023 16:45, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:44:52 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
>>>>> below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
>>>>> using HCFCs.
>>>>
>>>> By now, your ugly, inconvenient solution is costing more than the much
>>>> better solution the real engineers have implemented. It's a good thing you
>>>> make bugs, not trains.
>>>
>>> Better for the accountants maybe, not the passengers. But we all know they
>>> don't count otherwise they wouldn't have replaced all the seats in the 73
>>> stock with fabric covered concrete in the last few years.
>>
>> Yes, I wonder what happened to the comfortable old cushions?
>>
>>> Also I'm sure the AC in the new trains will work well enough to keep people
>>> happy while the train is stuck in yet another tunnel due to the knackered
>>> signalling which is what actually needed to be replaced, not the trains.
>>
>> Both need replacing, but so far there's only enough funding for the first
>> batch of trains. If money can be found to replace the old signalling, then
>> the second batch of trains can be ordered to take advantage of it. The
>> Bakerloo order needs to be placed soon, too, or the new Goole factory will
>> be shut.
>>
>> The good news is that TfL ridership is rising, so fare revenues should be
>> booming. But government assistance is still needed for large capital
>> investments.
>>
>> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tfl-tube-warning-following-autumn-164958579.html
>
> Riding around in both the morning and evening peaks in central London on
> Wednesday, the system seemed rather less busy than I remembered from a
> past life.
>

I think weekend ridership is now at record levels, but weekdays are still a
bit below 2019 levels. It might improve as more people are forced to return
to their offices, but they may have more flexibility about travel times
than before.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/11/2023 16:45, Recliner wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:44:52 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Physics not your strong point? When its re-expanded it'll cool down to at or
>>>>>> below the temperature it went in at. This is after all how AC works, albeit
>>>>>> using HCFCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> By now, your ugly, inconvenient solution is costing more than the much
>>>>> better solution the real engineers have implemented. It's a good thing you
>>>>> make bugs, not trains.
>>>>
>>>> Better for the accountants maybe, not the passengers. But we all know they
>>>> don't count otherwise they wouldn't have replaced all the seats in the 73
>>>> stock with fabric covered concrete in the last few years.
>>>
>>> Yes, I wonder what happened to the comfortable old cushions?
>>>
>>>> Also I'm sure the AC in the new trains will work well enough to keep people
>>>> happy while the train is stuck in yet another tunnel due to the knackered
>>>> signalling which is what actually needed to be replaced, not the trains.
>>>
>>> Both need replacing, but so far there's only enough funding for the first
>>> batch of trains. If money can be found to replace the old signalling, then
>>> the second batch of trains can be ordered to take advantage of it. The
>>> Bakerloo order needs to be placed soon, too, or the new Goole factory will
>>> be shut.
>>>
>>> The good news is that TfL ridership is rising, so fare revenues should be
>>> booming. But government assistance is still needed for large capital
>>> investments.
>>>
>>> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tfl-tube-warning-following-autumn-164958579.html
>>
>> Riding around in both the morning and evening peaks in central London on
>> Wednesday, the system seemed rather less busy than I remembered from a
>> past life.
>>
>
> I think weekend ridership is now at record levels, but weekdays are still a
> bit below 2019 levels. It might improve as more people are forced to return
> to their offices, but they may have more flexibility about travel times
> than before.

And, of course, the Liz and LO are being used heavily. The buses are busy,
too.