In message , CJC
writes
"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.

I think it was more the case that the tunnelling equipment available
when most of these lines were built (over 100 years ago) dictated that
the diameter of the tunnels should be as small as possible.
There were no Channel Tunnel style Boring Machines back then of course,
most of it was done by hand.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.