"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar
writes
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only
Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra
room inside the carriages.

They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock
have 2+2 seating.

A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying
capacity.

No, since it's not necessarily true.

The tube stock size thing can be put either way. My view is that
larger trains going under London would have been better than tubes,
but obviously this isn't how it has worked out. There must be some
decent justification for the tube size though, it has prevailed in new
line building until now.

I can't see how the victoria and jubilee lines were made tube size, a
mainline tunnel going under at Kings Cross and coming out at Victoria
would have made much more sense as would one from the LNWR line to
Waterloo than the current lines.

With Heathrow, my view is that the 6tph the District has free from
losing Richmond should replace the Uxbridge branch, and the Piccadilly
should be four-tracked to Heathrow, which would be quite costly, but
the inner lines should run fast in to Hammersmith, stopping at Acton
only, and the outer lines have a normal service. This would make the
airport link a lot better, the "express" stock could be changed in the
interior for more baggage space than now.