In article , ()
wrote:

BTW, has anybody ever thought of increasing the bridge height at
St. John's?

In a tunnel?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 03:55:49 -0700 (PDT), RPM
wrote:

On Jul 7, 5:16*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:19*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: wrote in message

news:EPOYn.108845$m87.80874@hurricane...

What about for the Island Line? Any going that way?

No - 'Island line' is to get 73 stock, according to SWT a few months ago.

Given that the IoW now routinely seems to utilize ex-TfL stock one has
to wonder why they do not go ahead and install a fourth rail. *It
would save converting the trains after each purchase.

It will be sad to see the all over red stock retire.

I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they
had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single
leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW.

Somewhere in the back issues of "Underground" (the LURS journal) ISTR
there are various reasons given for 1983 stock not being used one of
which can be summed up as 1983 stock not being suitable for use
anywhere within sniffing distance of the seaside unless a serious
amount of anti-corrosion modifications were made both below floor and
above.

On 8 July, 23:29, "
wrote:
On 08/07/2010 13:24, Bruce wrote:



On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:46:34 +0100, "Recliner"
*wrote:

"Matt *wrote in message

I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they
had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single
leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW.

Presumably because at the time, the (at the time, recently
refurbished) stock was still fit for purpose, and replacing it with
the ex-Jubilee stock would have been a false economy. *Perhaps if
there were six or seven units of 83 stock available now, then it might
be worthwhile, but with 69 stock becoming available soon, I think
there's a strong possibility that some of them will head to Grockle-
Central, rather than straight to CF Booth's tin-can factory.

I presume you mean 1967 stock. *I assume that driving it in purely
manual mode in short formation won't be a problem?

The stock earmarked for the Island Line is either 1972 or 1973 stock.
The 1972 stock is almost identical to 1967 stock but has manual diving
controls.

67 stock also has manual controls. But it seems that they are set up
similar to the Berlin U-Bahn in that the controller and the deadman
feature are separate, whereas they are integrated into one on all other
underground stock here.

In A stock isn't there still a separation between handle/controller
and brake, integrated from C69 stock onwards? Not the same separation
you mean, I guess, but I'd have thought more likely to be how 1967
stock is, given that that's how it was on LU.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:14:02 -0500,
wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

BTW, has anybody ever thought of increasing the bridge height at
St. John's?

In a tunnel?


It's a cut and cover tunnel, so its structural form is much more like
that of a bridge than a bored tunnel.

The restricted headroom was a result of raising the height of the
trackbed to reduce the frequency of a long-standing flooding problem.
This was done in the 1960s at the same time as the line was
electrified and Standard Tube stock was introduced to replace
steam-hauled trains.

Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing
a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail)
could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling
stock.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:41:14 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 03:55:49 -0700 (PDT), RPM
wrote:

On Jul 7, 5:16*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:19*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: wrote in message

news:EPOYn.108845$m87.80874@hurricane...

What about for the Island Line? Any going that way?

No - 'Island line' is to get 73 stock, according to SWT a few months ago.

Given that the IoW now routinely seems to utilize ex-TfL stock one has
to wonder why they do not go ahead and install a fourth rail. *It
would save converting the trains after each purchase.

It will be sad to see the all over red stock retire.

I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they
had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single
leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW.

Somewhere in the back issues of "Underground" (the LURS journal) ISTR
there are various reasons given for 1983 stock not being used one of
which can be summed up as 1983 stock not being suitable for use
anywhere within sniffing distance of the seaside unless a serious
amount of anti-corrosion modifications were made both below floor and
above.


I remember reading about that too. Presumably, whatever prevented the
1983 Stock being used on the Island does not apply to the 1967, 1972
and 1973 Stock. I assume that, in the 1983 Stock, dissimilar metals
are involved - likely to be steel and aluminium alloy, giving a risk
of severe electrolytic corrosion in the presence of salt spray, a risk
that wouldn't present such a serious problem on the Underground.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:55:33 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing
a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail)
could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling
stock.

It'll never happen. They barely make any money as it is. They're certainly
not going to spend millions just so they can run some clapped out 3rd
rail stock instead of clapped out tube stock.

B2003

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:14:02 -0500,
wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

BTW, has anybody ever thought of increasing the bridge height at
St. John's?

In a tunnel?

It's a cut and cover tunnel, so its structural form is much more like
that of a bridge than a bored tunnel.

The restricted headroom was a result of raising the height of the
trackbed to reduce the frequency of a long-standing flooding problem.
This was done in the 1960s at the same time as the line was
electrified and Standard Tube stock was introduced to replace
steam-hauled trains.

Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing
a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail)
could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling
stock.

I think you'll find that even before the tunnel floor was raised the
headroom was restricted below UK standards and they had to use legacy
island rolling stock to fit inside it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:41:14 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 03:55:49 -0700 (PDT), RPM
wrote:

On Jul 7, 5:16*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:19*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: wrote in message

news:EPOYn.108845$m87.80874@hurricane...

What about for the Island Line? Any going that way?

No - 'Island line' is to get 73 stock, according to SWT a few
months ago.

Given that the IoW now routinely seems to utilize ex-TfL stock one
has to wonder why they do not go ahead and install a fourth rail. It
would save converting the trains after each purchase.

It will be sad to see the all over red stock retire.

I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they
had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single
leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW.

Somewhere in the back issues of "Underground" (the LURS journal) ISTR
there are various reasons given for 1983 stock not being used one of
which can be summed up as 1983 stock not being suitable for use
anywhere within sniffing distance of the seaside unless a serious
amount of anti-corrosion modifications were made both below floor and
above.


I remember reading about that too. Presumably, whatever prevented the
1983 Stock being used on the Island does not apply to the 1967, 1972
and 1973 Stock. I assume that, in the 1983 Stock, dissimilar metals
are involved - likely to be steel and aluminium alloy, giving a risk
of severe electrolytic corrosion in the presence of salt spray, a risk
that wouldn't present such a serious problem on the Underground.

The electrolytic corrosion problem remains with all post 1938 tube stock
to some extent, surely? Although stock from, I think, 1983, has aluminium
underframes as well as bodies, the bogies still have a lot of steel in
them, don't they?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:17:54 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:14:02 -0500,
wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

BTW, has anybody ever thought of increasing the bridge height at
St. John's?

In a tunnel?

It's a cut and cover tunnel, so its structural form is much more like
that of a bridge than a bored tunnel.

The restricted headroom was a result of raising the height of the
trackbed to reduce the frequency of a long-standing flooding problem.
This was done in the 1960s at the same time as the line was
electrified and Standard Tube stock was introduced to replace
steam-hauled trains.

Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing
a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail)
could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling
stock.

I think you'll find that even before the tunnel floor was raised the
headroom was restricted below UK standards and they had to use legacy
island rolling stock to fit inside it.


You're right about the restricted loading gauge, but some of the stock
was pre-Grouping (pre-1923) stock from the mainland that just happened
to be smaller than most.

I specifically mentioned the Class 508s in a previous post because I
believe they have a lower overall height than most other "main line"
EMUs.

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:17:54 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:14:02 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

BTW, has anybody ever thought of increasing the bridge height at
St. John's?

In a tunnel?

It's a cut and cover tunnel, so its structural form is much more
like that of a bridge than a bored tunnel.

The restricted headroom was a result of raising the height of the
trackbed to reduce the frequency of a long-standing flooding problem.
This was done in the 1960s at the same time as the line was
electrified and Standard Tube stock was introduced to replace
steam-hauled trains.

Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing
a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail)
could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling
stock.

I think you'll find that even before the tunnel floor was raised the
headroom was restricted below UK standards and they had to use legacy
island rolling stock to fit inside it.

You're right about the restricted loading gauge, but some of the stock
was pre-Grouping (pre-1923) stock from the mainland that just happened
to be smaller than most.

I specifically mentioned the Class 508s in a previous post because I
believe they have a lower overall height than most other "main line"
EMUs.

I thought that too, but are they low enough?

--
Colin Rosenstiel