London Banter - View Single Post - District

[email protected] · December 16th 08, 09:15 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(Christopher A. Lee) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:06:54 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 15, 3:06*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:49:13 -0800 (PST), 1506

wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:11*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between
Barking and Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I
was wondering what short of length they can do in a weekend,
and if the renewed track is basically done to the same
standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four
foot for instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed,
bullhead variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like
the mainline did years ago?

Within the confines of tube and sub-surface tunnels one would think
jointed track easier to work with than CWR.

That IMU is the main reason for its continued use, IIRC there often
isn't sufficient clearance to allow use of the necessary equipment
for laying and fettling CWR and some of the curves would also invite
trouble. I've got an old programme for an open day at Neasden in
196mumble which features a CWR train so it isn't something LU have
yet to discover.

Quite, I am sure CWR could be used to good effect on the surface
section to Amersham, horses for courses.

They had CWR long before it took off on BR.

Because it was so new and nobody knew how to handle expansion, they
used what are best described as being like point blades sliding
against each other.

BR/NR use(d) them too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel