On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:59:04 -0500,
wrote:

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?


I don't know.

Please don't mistake my off the cuff suggestion for a comprehensive
engineering appraisal. ;-)

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:20:03 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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.

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/s...bsurfaceStock/
has a photo of an A stock driver's desk if anyone cares to analyse it.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:59:42 +0100, 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.

I later tripped over another couple of articles which suggest that
1983 stock was quite capable of suffering from corrosion in important
places with rain water never mind sea water. I think 1960/1962 stock
had earlier been ruled on on vaguely similar grounds more involved
with the underfloor equipment than the body. Perhaps a future bodge
(if the offending bridge/tunnel is not dealt with) could involve
putting sensitive electrical equipment back inside the body ?

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:58:00 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:59:42 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:41:14 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
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.

I later tripped over another couple of articles which suggest that
1983 stock was quite capable of suffering from corrosion in important
places with rain water never mind sea water. I think 1960/1962 stock
had earlier been ruled on on vaguely similar grounds more involved
with the underfloor equipment than the body. Perhaps a future bodge
(if the offending bridge/tunnel is not dealt with) could involve
putting sensitive electrical equipment back inside the body ?


That could help, but the corrosion problem is more likely to be a
result of salt spray while the trains are exposed on Ryde Pier. The
Ryde tunnel problem was about a failure to deal with rainwater.

On 7 July, 19:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0100, "Richard J."

wrote:
1506 wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ...
How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. *From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

I don't really like the new stock - I suppose I should like it but they
are a real disappointment [1]. The seats are too narrow, the seat
"cushions" have no cushioning and they are far too hard. *The tip up
seats are little better - having had to endure one the other evening. I
pointed all this out at the mock up visit at Euston but clearly no one
took any notice.

There are also silly things like the windows are far too small and don't
stretch the entire length of the seating bay - this is a really
retrograde step in my view. Given the number of cross platform
interchanges on the Vic Line it can be important to be able to see the
opposite platform but the end seats in every bay have a wretched panel
opposite them rather than a window.

*I also noticed the other morning that the doors really move back and
forth in their runners when the train moves at speed. *Given the trains
are not running at full power I wonder if the doors will be sucked out
of their runners when the full capability of the stock and control
system is exploited.

On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time
without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it
much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock. *

Not in my experience - one had to crawl along a few millimetres at Seven
Sisters the other morning. *I'm sure I've had other trains "micro
adjust" their stopping point.

And having
all longitudinal seating means more space for standing passengers, so
that's a comfort benefit too. *I can't comment on seat comfort as
they're always full up when I travel, which I suppose means they can't
be that bad. :-)

All the longitudinal seating means is that there are fewer seats which
is no good really. The enormous disabled bays in the centre of the train
further impinge on standing capacity because there are no head height
hand rails to hold on to - same problem over the tip up seat area. *I am
sure there are logical explanations as to why the design is as it is. To
my "non train designer" eyes it is a mistake to reduce the number of
places people can hold on to when the train is designed to carry far
more standees. The fact the trains can clearly go extremely quickly will
mean it will be more a challenge to hold on in the future when they
start to use their superior acceleration and braking capability.

The fact the seats are taken does not mean that people enjoy sitting on
them! *I have noticed a few (of the regular) people in the morning
deliberately not getting a 09 stock and waiting instead for a 67 stock -
presumably because they find them more comfortable.

[1] sorry LUL / TfL press office if you're reading this. I have tried to
like the 09 stock but I really prefer the old trains.
--
Paul C

I went in 2009 stock for the first time today. Not sure they are a
backward step as such, because was anything like them in the past?
Just a bad step.

The external display was showing "Warren Street" as it pulled into
Euston. Given the lack of windows, not helpful if it was showing the
same inside.

I've never experienced anything like those seats in a train. (A
particularly painful conference once though.) Not just hard, but at
an angle that forces one to lean forward. Or if one slumps one's bum
forward and leans back, only the top ridge of the seat is painfully in
contact with one's back.

The most striking thing of all was how tiny it seemed inside.
Narrower and lower-ceilinged than even the 1992 stock. What was all
that about them being "spacious"? Not much use basing that on them
being a couple of inches wider externally when the walls are six
inches thick. Why the hell are the walls six inches thick?

And the odd thing ... why does the voice say "The next station is
Vitcoria"? (But at least it didn't say "change for Connex" like the
new DLR stock.)

On 9 July, 21:03, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:44:58 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

[huge snip]

I went in 2009 stock for the first time today. *Not sure they are a
backward step as such, because was anything like them in the past?
Just a bad step.

Oh look someone agrees.


Yebbut it must be because I hate anything new, am a trainspotter etc
etc.

On 09/07/2010 09:55, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:14:02 -0500,
wrote:
In , ()
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.


But I guess that this is not in the cards.

On 08/07/2010 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote:


Yes and? I am not aware of 67 stock being made to stop with the
emergency brake.

I have. You can at times see the driver applying the emergency brake if
he is standing on the right side of the cab, as opposed to the left.

This makes for quite an abrupt stop.

Might also be worth noting that I have seen them use the controller to
throw the train into emergency when they are sitting on the left-hand side.

On 09/07/2010 18:45, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:20:03 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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.

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/s...bsurfaceStock/
has a photo of an A stock driver's desk if anyone cares to analyse it.

Anything for the 67s?

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:35:08 +0100, "
wrote:

On 09/07/2010 09:55, Bruce wrote:

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.


But I guess that this is not in the cards.


It was very much "on the cards" when the possibility of using
secondhand trams was under discussion.