From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

From
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/new-piccadilly-line-trains-delayed-tfl-london-underground-b1272662.html

Tube passengers could have to wait another year for the already delayed
launch of a new fleet of Piccadilly line trains.
The first of the 94 new trains rCo the first deep-level trains on the London Underground to be walk-through and air conditioned rCo was originally due to enter service by December 2025.

Last year The Standard revealed this had been delayed until the second half
of 2026.

Now Transport for London has admitted the delays will be even longer, and
the first of the new trains are now not expected until some point between rCLDecember 2026 and June 2027rCY.

Stuart Harvey, TfLrCOs chief capital officer, said the challenge was akin to fitting a 4x4 sports utility vehicle in a garage designed to house a small
car.

He said he was willing to bet that the first train would enter service in December rCo but that everything would have to go right for that to happen. rCLItrCOs challenging but achievable,rCY he told The Standard.

TfL has also admitted the -u3bn project has soared in cost rCo and that an additional -u409m will be required, mainly due to the cost of upgrading the linerCOs two depots, at Northfields and Cockfosters.

It comes as TfL also admitted the introduction of a new fleet of trains on
the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) would not begin until the end of the
summer, adding to a delay of almost two years.

The first three of the new DLR trains were withdrawn on safety grounds last November after one train, with passengers on board, failed to stop at the correct point at Canning Town station during bad weather.

The additional delay and increased cost of the new Piccadilly line trains
will be a particular embarrassment to TfL and the train manufacturer
Siemens rCo and a massive blow to passengers.

The 86 trains currently on the Piccadilly line have been in service since
1975. The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with Heathrow airport and beyond and is used for more than 10 per cent of all
daily Tube journeys rCo about 160m trips a year.

The new trains are due to provide 10 per cent more capacity, wider doors
for quicker boarding, walk through carriages and CCTV.

Crucially, in terms of easing rush-hour overcrowding, they will enable peak frequencies to be increased from 24 to 27 trains an hour rCo and eventually
36 trains an hour, equivalent to the Victoria line.

Four of the new trains have been undergoing testing in London since 2024.

But TfL wants to be sure that the new fleet will be able to last for 40
years and be fully reliable, without any risk that they break down in
tunnels with hundreds of passengers on board.
It says that a number of minor issues with the trains, track and stations
need to be solved.

About 20 trains are in various stages of manufacture and will have to be retro-fitted with modified parts, including their traction cables.

TfL has also faced challenges ensuring the new digital camera system that
Tube drivers will use instead of platform mirrors all works correctly.

The original plan had been for all 94 trains to be in operation by the end
of 2027. TfL is now rCLreprofilingrCY the timetable, meaning it could be several years before the current fleet are taken out of service.

The first batch of the new trains was built by Siemens Mobility in Vienna, Austria. The bulk of the order will be assembled at SiemensrCO new factory in Goole, east Yorkshire.

TfL says the revised timeline rCLreflects the complexity of introducing brand-new, state-of-the-art trains onto a legacy rail line with very old infrastructure that has been in need of investment for a long timerCY.

Issues with the new trains were first identified by TfL last year.

Mr Harvey said: rCLI know that it will be hugely disappointing for our customers that they will have to wait longer for the new Piccadilly line
trains to be in service.

rCLThe programme of work that we are undertaking to bring these game-changing trains to London is hugely complex and is underpinned by our steadfast commitment to safety. It is critical that we do everything we can to make
sure that, when they enter service, we are confident that these trains are ready to operate safely.

rCLWe will continue to work closely with Siemens Mobility and the rest of our supply chain to finish this work as quickly as we can so Londoners can experience the benefits as soon as possible.rCY

Aglaja Schneider, joint-CEO Siemens Mobility UKI, said: rCLAs a Londoner, I know how excited everyone is about the new trains coming into service and, whilst there will be a delay, it wonrCOt be long before these trains
transform travel for millions of people.

rCLWerCOre continuing to work side-by-side with TfL colleagues to deliver the trains into passenger service as soon as itrCOs practical to do so,
overcoming the challenges of running state-of-the-art, air-conditioned, walk-through trains on lines that were built 120 years ago.rCY

Passengers have been warned that the Piccadilly line will be closed between Acton Town and Heathrow from May 28 to 31.
It will then operate between Acton Town and Heathrow only from July 30 to August 3. Additional extended closures are expected.

The first of the new walk-through, air conditioned DLR trains are due to re-enter service by rCLlate summerrCY, though TfL has announced a rCLwindowrCY of
between May and August.

In a bid to prevent future rCLlow adhesionrCY problems, the new trains, built by Spanish firm CAF, will be fitted with devices that spread sand onto the track to prevent the train wheels from slipping.

Mr Harvey said: rCLWe know customers are looking forward to travelling on
these new trains, and we will provide a further update in the spring, with
the trains being reintroduced by the summer.

rCLOur engineers, together with CAF and our franchisee KeolisAmey Docklands, have worked tirelessly to ensure they return safely and reliably.rCY

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and beyond to only
be the western end.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and beyond to only >be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport
loop and back through Central London.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and beyond to only >> be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport
loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous. And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or Heathrow at the end.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and beyond to only >>> be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport
loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and beyond to only
be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport
loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or
Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably
very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line. ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and
beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport
loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or
Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed >replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably >very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and
beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or
Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably
very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and
beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or
Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably
very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Nobody but you bothers to point out trivial instances like this. This paper
has a skeleton crew of heavily-stretched journalists who donrCOt have time to polish every sentence of the irrelevant background bits of news stories. ThererCOs plenty of newsworthy stuff to discuss in this news story. The unchanged route of the Piccadilly line isnrCOt one of them.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and
beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >>>>> Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably >>> very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas.

Yes, I believe thatrCOs one of the problems. However, that was actually expected, and there was a planned period when they tested the trains on the infrastructure, in some cases having to grind off platform edges. That
probably took a bit longer than expected, but a lot more problems seem to
have been found on the trains themselves, hence the extra six months delay.
For example, thererCOs mention of new parts being needed and having to be retrofitted to already part-built trains. That suggests design faults.

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new
trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <MkAoR.120$uJE9.94@fx10.ams1>, at 11:29:48 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and
beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >>>>> Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably >>> very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Nobody but you bothers to point out trivial instances like this. This paper >has a skeleton crew of heavily-stretched journalists who donrCOt have time to >polish every sentence of the irrelevant background bits of news stories. >ThererCOs plenty of newsworthy stuff to discuss in this news story. The >unchanged route of the Piccadilly line isnrCOt one of them.

I'm more inclined to think it's AI having a hallucination.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The >article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible. The
outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be >retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec >anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new
trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new >trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger >service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the designers won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so thererCOs only
a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the platforms were expected
to need reprofiling. Maybe there were more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment or junk that intruded into the larger swept volume of the new trains, but cleared the narrower 73 TS.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <MkAoR.120$uJE9.94@fx10.ams1>, at 11:29:48 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and
beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >>>>>> Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with
Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably >>>> very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Nobody but you bothers to point out trivial instances like this. This paper >> has a skeleton crew of heavily-stretched journalists who donrCOt have time to
polish every sentence of the irrelevant background bits of news stories.
ThererCOs plenty of newsworthy stuff to discuss in this news story. The
unchanged route of the Piccadilly line isnrCOt one of them.

I'm more inclined to think it's AI having a hallucination.

Highly unlikely. But if you think so, please give us the evidence.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be
retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec
anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new
trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new >> trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger >> service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the
customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be
retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec >>> anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new
trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new >>> trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger >>> service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to
very experienced engineers.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be
retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec >>>> anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger >>>> service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the
extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new
trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the >> same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the
customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way? >>

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so thererCOs only >a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the platforms were expected >to need reprofiling. Maybe there were more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

or junk that intruded into the larger swept volume of the new trains,
but cleared the narrower 73 TS.

--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <y4BoR.122$uJE9.46@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <MkAoR.120$uJE9.94@fx10.ams1>, at 11:29:48 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb >>>>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and >>>>>>>>> beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >>>>>>> Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with >>>>>> Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed
replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably >>>>> very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Nobody but you bothers to point out trivial instances like this.
This paper has a skeleton crew of heavily-stretched journalists who >>>donrCOt have time to polish every sentence of the irrelevant
background bits of news stories. ThererCOs plenty of newsworthy
stuff to discuss in this news story. The unchanged route of the >>>Piccadilly line isnrCOt one of them.

I'm more inclined to think it's AI having a hallucination.

Highly unlikely. But if you think so, please give us the evidence.

The language used, the wonky analogies, and of course the lack of human
staff you mentioned.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <39BoR.33$h61.31@fx09.ams1>, at 12:25:35 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be
retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec >>> anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new
trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new >>> trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger >>> service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the >extensive testing?

Doesn't matter whose staff, my comment stands.

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new >trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the >same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the >customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

That would be a lack of project management staff.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The >>>> article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The same was true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the designers >>> won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so thererCOs only
a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the platforms were expected >> to need reprofiling. Maybe there were more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of equipment down there that might be slightly misaligned, out of position, loose on its brackets, or simply not properly documented. Some has been stored in
passages for years, and might be protruding.

Another issue is that these are the first articulated LU stock. ItrCOs
probably not possible to precisely pre-calculate their exact kinematic
swept enveloperCoperhaps itrCOs slightly larger than expected?

This is what real-world rail engineering is all about.




--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, >>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be
retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec >>>>> anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger
service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the
extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new >>> trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the
same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the
customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way? >>>

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to >> interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to >> very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems.

As a hypothetical example, the specification might say that braking
tolerances must meet a certain number on track that meets specification
wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue with the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity.
Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <y4BoR.122$uJE9.46@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <MkAoR.120$uJE9.94@fx10.ams1>, at 11:29:48 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on Fri, 27 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a >>>>>>>>>>> secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and >>>>>>>>>> beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport >>>>>>>>> loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous.

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >>>>>>>> Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with >>>>>>> Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed >>>>>> replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are probably
very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route.

As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing?

Nobody but you bothers to point out trivial instances like this.
This paper has a skeleton crew of heavily-stretched journalists who
donrCOt have time to polish every sentence of the irrelevant
background bits of news stories. ThererCOs plenty of newsworthy
stuff to discuss in this news story. The unchanged route of the
Piccadilly line isnrCOt one of them.

I'm more inclined to think it's AI having a hallucination.

Highly unlikely. But if you think so, please give us the evidence.

The language used, the wonky analogies,

DonrCOt you understand that the rather good analogy was a quote from a named TfL executive, not the reporter?

and of course the lack of human staff you mentioned.

No, it looks much more like an overworked human reporter pushing out a
story quickly, without the benefit of experienced sub-editors. Most normal people reading it concentrate on the newsy bits, not the boilerplate
background stuff that most readers already know, but which style guides
still insist must be included. Nobody but you cares about that irrelevant
part of the content.

Equally, you have nothing to add to the discussion on the meat of the
story. ThatrCOs why you only comment on the least relevant part.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, >>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be >>>>>> retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec
anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger
service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the >>>> extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new >>>> trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the
same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the
customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way? >>>>

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to
interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to >>> very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the
procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems.

As a hypothetical example, the specification might say that braking tolerances must meet a certain number on track that meets specification wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue with
the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity. Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

The reports suggest that the problem only shows up in the wet, which of
course occur slightly more often in East London than Beasain. Perhaps the requirements omitted to specifically mention braking distances on wet
rails? A British or German manufacturer would automatically assume the need
for sanders in wet conditions, but perhaps not a Spanish one?

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be >>>>>>> retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec
anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>>>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger
service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the >>>>> extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new >>>>> trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the
same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the >>>>> customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to
interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to >>>> very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the
procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems. >>>

As a hypothetical example, the specification might say that braking
tolerances must meet a certain number on track that meets specification
wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track
doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue with
the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity.
Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

The reports suggest that the problem only shows up in the wet, which of course occur slightly more often in East London than Beasain. Perhaps the requirements omitted to specifically mention braking distances on wet
rails? A British or German manufacturer would automatically assume the need for sanders in wet conditions, but perhaps not a Spanish one?

ThererCOs all sorts of things that slip through a specification. The trouble is, if you make it 100% watertight you are effectively designing the thing yourself. Specifications often refer to industry standards. Those standards arenrCOt necessarily 100% applicable to the circumstance, or are themselves open to interpretation. As you say, institutional knowledge about, for
example, needing sanders in a damp country can escape a specification.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10nuqmq$3crfu$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:31:07 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

As you say, institutional knowledge about, for
example, needing sanders in a damp country can escape a specification.

You have an incredibly low opinion of the train designers, next you'll
be saying they didn't realise sometimes it snows in London.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuqmq$3crfu$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:31:07 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

As you say, institutional knowledge about, for
example, needing sanders in a damp country can escape a specification.

You have an incredibly low opinion of the train designers, next you'll
be saying they didn't realise sometimes it snows in London.

I quoted it as an example. Institutional knowledge is the polyfiller that
fills the gaps left in the specification. Train manufacturers arenrCOt having
a particularly great time. The CAF Scotrail sleeper stock was plagued with issues. See also the Hitachi 80x stock. The Hitachi 810s being introduced
to the MML appear to fail more often than they run at the moment. IrCOm sure the list can be added to.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:41:46 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be
retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec >>>> anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new

trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger >>>> service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the
extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new
trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous >generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the >> same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the
customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way? >>

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write

Not sure how you can losely word "The train must never overrun the platform when braking from line speed".


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:59:59 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The same was >true of the 2009TS.

I wonder if the tunnel upgrades on the picc for the new trains will mean the 2009s are no longer marooned on the victoria line becuase they're too big
for the picc tunnels and have to be carted away on the back of a low loader for heavy maintenance.

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of equipment down

I suspect the platforms are the real issue particularly on tighly curved platforms such as holborn northbound. Their going to end up with the same
issue as the S stock - easier for wheelchairs, harder for everyone else who
has to hop across the quite large gap at curved platforms. In NYC they have platform extenders to solve this issue but I guess the finances weren't there at TfL or more likely they've polished their diversity halo (disabled subdivision) and everyone else could lump it.



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:16:32 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track
doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue >with
the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity.
Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

The reports suggest that the problem only shows up in the wet, which of >course occur slightly more often in East London than Beasain. Perhaps the >requirements omitted to specifically mention braking distances on wet
rails? A British or German manufacturer would automatically assume the need >for sanders in wet conditions, but perhaps not a Spanish one?

ATO braking accurately in the wet has been a solved problem since at least
the 80s when the DLR first opened, there's absolutely no excuse for not being able to do it in 2026. As for sanders - never seen them on DLR trains.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <oOBoR.127$li2.72@fx17.ams1>, at 13:09:40 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <y4BoR.122$uJE9.46@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:46 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <MkAoR.120$uJE9.94@fx10.ams1>, at 11:29:48 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <_1AoR.124$li2.111@fx17.ams1>, at 11:09:46 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nuf7e$396gr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:10 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nu8ah$373g3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:17:21 on >>>>>>>>>>Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <VCpoR.117$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 23:18:13 on >>>>>>>>>>>>
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

The Piccadilly line connects KingrCOs Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>>>>>>> Heathrow airport and beyond

Oopsie! Only if they crash through the buffers at T5 (or is there a
secret extension to Windsor Castle?)

Nope. It goes to Cockfosters as well. YourCOve just read and >>>>>>>>>>> beyond to only be the western end.

Cockfosters isn't "beyond Heathrow" unless you ride round the airport
loop and back through Central London.

ItrCOs ambiguous.

Material like this should be written so as not to be ambiguous. >>>>>>>>

And beyond can refer to Kings Cross at the start of the sentence, or >>>>>>>>> Heathrow at the end.

eg: The Piccadilly line connects King's Cross and the West End with >>>>>>>> Heathrow airport, and suburbs of North London.

This was an article about further delayed deliveries of much-needed >>>>>>> replacement LU trains in a London local paper, whose readers are >>>>>>>probably
very familiar with the route of the Piccadilly line.

In which case omit the entire sentence.

ItrCOs wasnrCOt intended as a detailed description of that route. >>>>>>>
As such, this thread has completely missed the point.

Are you the only person allowed to point out alleged sloppy writing? >>>>>

Nobody but you bothers to point out trivial instances like this.
This paper has a skeleton crew of heavily-stretched journalists who >>>>> donrCOt have time to polish every sentence of the irrelevant
background bits of news stories. ThererCOs plenty of newsworthy
stuff to discuss in this news story. The unchanged route of the
Piccadilly line isnrCOt one of them.

I'm more inclined to think it's AI having a hallucination.

Highly unlikely. But if you think so, please give us the evidence.

The language used, the wonky analogies,

DonrCOt you understand that the rather good analogy was a quote from a named >TfL executive, not the reporter?

I'm theorising it wasn't a TfL exective, but some wonky AI employed by
TfL to issue such statements.

and of course the lack of human staff you mentioned.

No, it looks much more like an overworked human reporter pushing out a
story quickly, without the benefit of experienced sub-editors. Most normal >people reading it concentrate on the newsy bits, not the boilerplate >background stuff that most readers already know, but which style guides
still insist must be included. Nobody but you cares about that irrelevant >part of the content.

Equally, you have nothing to add to the discussion on the meat of the
story. ThatrCOs why you only comment on the least relevant part.

You must have missed my comments about the trains [not] fitting the
tunnels. Do try to keep up.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? The >>>>> article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas. >>>>

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The same was >true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the designers >>>> won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so >>>thererCOs only a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the >>>platforms were expected to need reprofiling. Maybe there were more
than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of equipment down
there that might be slightly misaligned, out of position, loose on its >brackets, or simply not properly documented. Some has been stored in
passages for years, and might be protruding.

Which is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".

Or are you just trolling?
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be >>>>>>> retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec
anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>>>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger
service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the >>>>> extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new >>>>> trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the
same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the >>>>> customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec?

Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to
interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to >>>> very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the
procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems. >>>

As a hypothetical example, the specification might say that braking
tolerances must meet a certain number on track that meets specification
wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track
doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue with
the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity.
Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

The reports suggest that the problem only shows up in the wet, which of course occur slightly more often in East London than Beasain. Perhaps the requirements omitted to specifically mention braking distances on wet
rails? A British or German manufacturer would automatically assume the need for sanders in wet conditions, but perhaps not a Spanish one?

Ummm. ItrCOs not like CAF have never built any trains for the British Isles beforerCa

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On 01/03/2026 18:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? >>>>>> The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas. >>>>>

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate >>>>> analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The same
was
true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the
designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so
thererCOs only-a a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the
platforms were expected-a to need reprofiling. Maybe there were more
than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of equipment >> down
there that might be slightly misaligned, out of position, loose on its
brackets, or simply not properly documented. Some has been stored in
passages for years, and might be protruding.

Which is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".

Or are you just trolling?

Nope, the tunnel has a fixed size - the definition of the size of the
tunnel. Extraneous fittings (likely installed after the tunnel was
built) reduce the effective size of the tunnel but do not alter the
tunnel size!
--
Colin

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be >>>>>>>> retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec
anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new >>>>>>>> trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger
service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the >>>>>> extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new >>>>>> trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the
same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the >>>>>> customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec? >>>>>>
Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to
interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to
very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the
procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems. >>>>

As a hypothetical example, the specification might say that braking
tolerances must meet a certain number on track that meets specification
wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track >>> doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue with
the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity.
Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

The reports suggest that the problem only shows up in the wet, which of
course occur slightly more often in East London than Beasain. Perhaps the
requirements omitted to specifically mention braking distances on wet
rails? A British or German manufacturer would automatically assume the need >> for sanders in wet conditions, but perhaps not a Spanish one?

Ummm. ItrCOs not like CAF have never built any trains for the British Isles beforerCa

Yes, thatrCOs why this particular problem is so surprising. We expect
software problems with most new trains, sometimes aircon faults, and cracks
in some, but a basic braking inadequacy is pretty unusual.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/03/2026 18:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having problems? >>>>>>> The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas. >>>>>>

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate >>>>>> analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The same >>> was
true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the
designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so
thererCOs only-a a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the >>>>> platforms were expected-a to need reprofiling. Maybe there were more >>>>> than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of equipment >>> down
there that might be slightly misaligned, out of position, loose on its
brackets, or simply not properly documented. Some has been stored in
passages for years, and might be protruding.

Which is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".

Or are you just trolling?

Nope, the tunnel has a fixed size - the definition of the size of the tunnel. Extraneous fittings (likely installed after the tunnel was
built) reduce the effective size of the tunnel but do not alter the
tunnel size!

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to
the old, conventional stock.

IrCOve also read that there might be aircon problems. It could be that the maximum size of heat exchanger that could be fitted into the tight space is proving inadequate. The normal solution of fitting larger heat exchangers
may not be possible.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <ptAoR.26$191.11@fx16.ams1>, at 11:39:01 on Sat, 28 Feb 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

It was also news to me that the new CAF DLR trains are having to be >>>>>>>>> retro-fitted with sanders. Why, I wonder, werenrCOt they part of the spec
anyway? Do the current trains also have them? If not, why do the new
trains need them? And if they do, why werenrCOt they specified for the new
trains? Any why was the need only discovered after they entered passenger
service, rather than during the extensive testing phase?

Can't get the staff, Guv.

But whose staff made the error? Why wasnrCOt it discovered during the >>>>>>> extensive testing?

Braking performance is one of the basic, standard specifications for new
trains. This isnrCOt a new networkrCoitrCOs been served by previous generations
of trains for decades. So why werenrCOt the new ones capable of at least the
same performance as the ones theyrCOre scheduled to replace? Did the >>>>>>> customer not require that? Or did the supplier not meet the spec? >>>>>>>
Does the fact that the trains are operated as a concession get in the way?

Probably a loosely worded specification. ItrCOs incredibly difficult to write
a watertight specification that covers all eventualities and isnrCOt open to
interpretation. Even harder if the procuring party does not have access to
very experienced engineers.

I wonder if itrCOs TfL or the DLR operator (KeolisAmey) that runs the >>>>> procurement? If the latter, it might help explain some of the problems. >>>>>

As a hypothetical example, the specification might say that braking
tolerances must meet a certain number on track that meets specification >>>> wibble. Manufacturer meets this. Then customer discovers that their track >>>> doesnrCOt quite conform to specification wibble, but it wasnrCOt an issue with
the previous stock, so nobody knew about this lack of track conformity. >>>> Complex engineering systems are rarely 100 percent fully defined.

The reports suggest that the problem only shows up in the wet, which of
course occur slightly more often in East London than Beasain. Perhaps the >>> requirements omitted to specifically mention braking distances on wet
rails? A British or German manufacturer would automatically assume the need >>> for sanders in wet conditions, but perhaps not a Spanish one?

Ummm. ItrCOs not like CAF have never built any trains for the British Isles >> beforerCa

Yes, thatrCOs why this particular problem is so surprising. We expect software problems with most new trains, sometimes aircon faults, and cracks in some, but a basic braking inadequacy is pretty unusual.

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, IrCOm still leaning towards the
track, and that includes the automation signalling, not meeting the specifications communicated to the manufacturer.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10o2dn0$kave$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:13:48 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

On 01/03/2026 18:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28 Feb >>2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having >>>>>>>problems? The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain areas. >>>>>>

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an inappropriate >>>>>> analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more
equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The >>>same was
true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the >>>>>>designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so >>>>>thererCOs only-a a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases,
the platforms were expected-a to need reprofiling. Maybe there were >>>>>more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of >>>equipment down there that might be slightly misaligned, out of >>>position, loose on its brackets, or simply not properly documented. >>>Some has been stored in passages for years, and might be protruding.

Which is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".
Or are you just trolling?

Nope, the tunnel has a fixed size - the definition of the size of the >tunnel. Extraneous fittings (likely installed after the tunnel was
built) reduce the effective size of the tunnel but do not alter the
tunnel size!

Invisible word time again, and it's only the second of the month.

Tunnel size is of course, the net ('effective') size after the fittings
have been surveyed, not the gross size with no fittings.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict >precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to >the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages,
wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict >> precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to >> the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages, wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.

My understanding is that where structure is suspected to foul the train it
is rCLpaintedrCY and then they see if there are impact/scuff marks. Your method of covering the train with polystyrene would only show that there had been impacts, but not the location of the structure causing it.

I did once see the outside of an operational deep tube tunnel - it was
exposed during some engineering works. Basically a big iron pipe. It was infeasibly small and yourCOd never imagine that a train could fit inside.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict
precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to >>> the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages,
wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.

My understanding is that where structure is suspected to foul the train it
is rCLpaintedrCY and then they see if there are impact/scuff marks. Your method
of covering the train with polystyrene would only show that there had been impacts, but not the location of the structure causing it.

I did once see the outside of an operational deep tube tunnel - it was exposed during some engineering works. Basically a big iron pipe. It was infeasibly small and yourCOd never imagine that a train could fit inside.

This article hints at some of the issues

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/tron-trains-spotted-london-undergrounds-new-trains-being-tested-on-the-piccadilly-line-86902/

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict >> precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to >> the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages, wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.

There are photos of the gauge clearance for the Eurostar on its original
route through Kent. The gauge clearing train included a Mk3 carriage with blocks of foam attached at strategic places on the outside.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict
precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to >>>> the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages, >>> wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.

My understanding is that where structure is suspected to foul the train it >> is rCLpaintedrCY and then they see if there are impact/scuff marks. Your method
of covering the train with polystyrene would only show that there had been >> impacts, but not the location of the structure causing it.

I did once see the outside of an operational deep tube tunnel - it was
exposed during some engineering works. Basically a big iron pipe. It was
infeasibly small and yourCOd never imagine that a train could fit inside. >>

This article hints at some of the issues

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/tron-trains-spotted-london-undergrounds-new-trains-being-tested-on-the-piccadilly-line-86902/

It looks like more issues have been uncovered, or the fix is turning out to
be more complicated, since that article was written. It seems that the new trains can now test run on the whole line, so any infrastructure fettling
has probably been completed. The remaining problems are in the trains and depots.

One thing it confirms is NeilrCOs observation of the lack of activity rebuilding Cockfosters. I hadnrCOt realised this part of the project had been officially deferred. One effect will be to delay the full deployment of the
new fleet rCo a number of the old trains might have to soldier on for a few more years, which will mean that the new fleet will have to be governed to
the 73TSrCOs more leisurely acceleration. So the increased in frequency will probably also have to be deferred.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThererCOs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict >> precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatrCOs quite different to >> the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages, wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.

Yes, that was the traditional way, but isnrCOt suitable for testing the kinematic envelope of a novel articulated design. It seems that there was
more transverse movement than predicted on curves with the floating cars.

In any case, that part of the testing seems to be complete, as the test
trains are running on the whole line.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On 02/03/2026 07:50, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10o2dn0$kave$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:13:48 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

On 01/03/2026 18:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, >>>>>>> 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having
problems?-a The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain >>>>>>>> areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an
inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more >>>>>>> equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about?

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors. The
same-a was
true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the >>>>>>> designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so
thererCOs only-a a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, the >>>>>> platforms were expected-a to need reprofiling. Maybe there were
more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of
equipment-a down-a there that might be slightly misaligned, out of
position, loose on its-a brackets, or simply not properly documented. >>>> Some has been stored in-a passages for years, and might be protruding.

-aWhich is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".
-aOr are you just trolling?

Nope, the tunnel has a fixed size - the definition of the size of the
tunnel. Extraneous fittings (likely installed after the tunnel was
built) reduce the effective size of the tunnel but do not alter the
tunnel size!

Invisible word time again, and it's only the second of the month.

Tunnel size is of course, the net ('effective') size after the fittings
have been surveyed, not the gross size with no fittings.

Nope, you are coming up with the nett and gross invisible words, The
tunnel size is the size of the boring machine and any fixed linings.
--
Colin

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 11:49:42 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:

One thing it confirms is NeilrCOs observation of the lack of activity >rebuilding Cockfosters. I hadnrCOt realised this part of the project had been

Haven't been there for a while, I might arrange a passing visit this week to see whats happened. Or more likely not.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:31:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <u93pR.126$uJE9.67@fx10.ams1>, at 22:34:02 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

ThereAs also the issue of the kinematic envelope, which is hard to predict >>> precisely, particularly with articulated stock thatAs quite different to >>> the old, conventional stock.

aiui the process should be to make a prototype train of a few carriages,
wrap it in expanded polystyrene, and drive it through in the middle of
the night. Then have a look to see where impacts have taken place.

My understanding is that where structure is suspected to foul the train it
is opaintedo and then they see if there are impact/scuff marks. Your method >of covering the train with polystyrene would only show that there had been >impacts, but not the location of the structure causing it.

It would tend to leave some remnants downwind of the fouling
structure. Otherwise it or a similar sacrificial material could be
used to give an indication visible on a monitoring camera. Your
example requires the location/device to be roughly known/suspected
already while strapping stuff on the outside can be used for checking
longer sections. The suspect could then be further verified by your
method but it might not be the only one if e.g. someone has replaced
several of the same device with something sitting an inch closer to
the track.

I did once see the outside of an operational deep tube tunnel - it was >exposed during some engineering works. Basically a big iron pipe. It was >infeasibly small and youAd never imagine that a train could fit inside.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10o43u6$15vvc$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:14 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

On 02/03/2026 07:50, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10o2dn0$kave$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:13:48 on Sun, 1 Mar >>2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

On 01/03/2026 18:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28
Feb 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, >>>>>>>>28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having >>>>>>>>>problems?-a The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain >>>>>>>>>areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an >>>>>>>>inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more >>>>>>>> equipment into the available outline than is easily possible.

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about? >>>>>

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors.
The same-a was
true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the >>>>>>>>designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so >>>>>>>thererCOs only-a a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, >>>>>>>the platforms were expected-a to need reprofiling. Maybe there >>>>>>>were more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of >>>>>equipment-a down-a there that might be slightly misaligned, out of >>>>>position, loose on its-a brackets, or simply not properly >>>>>documented. Some has been stored in-a passages for years, and might be protruding.

-aWhich is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".
-aOr are you just trolling?

Nope, the tunnel has a fixed size - the definition of the size of
the tunnel. Extraneous fittings (likely installed after the tunnel
was built) reduce the effective size of the tunnel but do not alter
the tunnel size!

Invisible word time again, and it's only the second of the month.
Tunnel size is of course, the net ('effective') size after the
fittings have been surveyed, not the gross size with no fittings.

Nope, you are coming up with the nett and gross invisible words, The
tunnel size is the size of the boring machine and any fixed linings.

No! It also includes an obstructions fixed inside the tunnel.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10o43u6$15vvc$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:14 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

On 02/03/2026 07:50, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10o2dn0$kave$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:13:48 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

On 01/03/2026 18:41, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <jFBoR.123$uJE9.95@fx10.ams1>, at 12:59:59 on Sat, 28
Feb 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <w4BoR.121$uJE9.73@fx10.ams1>, at 12:20:44 on Sat, 28 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10nujeq$3ahd4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:22 on Sat, >>>>>>>>> 28 Feb
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Back to the original thread starter. Why are they having
problems?-a The
article seems to imply that the trains are too big for certain >>>>>>>>>> areas.

I think that's also sloppy writing, or if you prefer an
inappropriate
analogy.

What I think he's saying is that they are trying to shoehorn more >>>>>>>>> equipment into the available outline than is easily possible. >>>>>>>>

No, that problem was solved years ago, before any were built.

So what's the SUV too big to fit a garage, broken analogy all about? >>>>>>

TheyrCOre designed to be a tighter fit than their predecessors.
The same-a was
true of the 2009TS.

The outline itself can't be too big for any of the tunnels, the >>>>>>>>> designers
won't have made that rookie mistake.

The platforms, not the tunnels. These are low floor trains, so >>>>>>>> thererCOs only-a a small gap to the platform. So, in many cases, >>>>>>>> the platforms were expected-a to need reprofiling. Maybe there >>>>>>>> were more than expected?

Also, itrCOs possible that there were bits of tunnel equipment

Which is "too big for the tunnel", Dear Liza.

TheyrCOre designed to fit in the tunnels. But thererCOs loads of
equipment-a down-a there that might be slightly misaligned, out of >>>>>> position, loose on its-a brackets, or simply not properly
documented. Some has been stored in-a passages for years, and might be protruding.

-aWhich is the very definition of "too big for the tunnel".
-aOr are you just trolling?

Nope, the tunnel has a fixed size - the definition of the size of
the tunnel. Extraneous fittings (likely installed after the tunnel
was built) reduce the effective size of the tunnel but do not alter
the tunnel size!

Invisible word time again, and it's only the second of the month.
Tunnel size is of course, the net ('effective') size after the
fittings have been surveyed, not the gross size with no fittings.

Nope, you are coming up with the nett and gross invisible words, The
tunnel size is the size of the boring machine and any fixed linings.

No! It also includes an obstructions fixed inside the tunnel.

The trains are designed to fit through the tunnels, taking into account horizontal and vertical curvature, with a small but adequate margin to
allow for variations in track position and wheel diameters, and cables alongside the train. These trains will be service for decades, and canrCOt
vary in size to allow for relatively temporary fittings in the tunnels.

One area that was known would need adjustment was the platform edges, as
the new trains have lower floors. Time was allowed for this, but I believe
the work required was more extensive than expected (maybe because of
variations in track position).


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Tue, 03 Mar 2026 10:25:28 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

No! It also includes an obstructions fixed inside the tunnel.

The trains are designed to fit through the tunnels, taking into account >horizontal and vertical curvature, with a small but adequate margin to
allow for variations in track position and wheel diameters, and cables >alongside the train. These trains will be service for decades, and canrCOt >vary in size to allow for relatively temporary fittings in the tunnels.

One area that was known would need adjustment was the platform edges, as
the new trains have lower floors. Time was allowed for this, but I believe >the work required was more extensive than expected (maybe because of >variations in track position).

There are plenty of raised locations on picc platforms to provide level boarding for wheelchairs etc onto the current trains. Once the new trains
come into service those locations will become dangerous as people unaware
could fall into a new train. But they'll still be needed while the 73 stock
are running. Wonder how they'll square that circle.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2