In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

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.

My recollection is that C69 stock was the first with a combined
traction/brake handle.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:46:54 +0100, "
wrote:

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?

Not showing the cab (go down to the bottom and select "Underground
trains" to get yourself in the right starting position). There is one
elsewhere :-
http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/67...b%20Photos.htm
which seems to be a well-used London Transport Museum photo.
(the only image supplied by Google for +"1967 stock" +cab which
interestingly offers a scantily-clad young lady riding a bomb among
its selection). Possibly there are more in the LTM collection if those
are still available on-line.

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
news
In message MBoZn.113143$m87.61574@hurricane, Steve Dulieu
writes

Of course, the last web chat was before TfL took back control of
Tubelines, which looks like leading to postponement of the new
Piccadilly line stock. So SWT might need to come up with a new plan.

Quite, I'm hearing that a 'refresh' might now be on the cards to eke
them out to 2020. I wonder if SWT will be so keen then?

Indeed, and a 2 car '73 stock is something I'd be interested to see...

It might go a bit, assuming that they are both motor cars.

No doubt, but as we spoke about earlier today, with no compressors to knock
off the SAPBs, most of the "going" could well be of the up in flames sort,
mind..;-)
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change jealous to sad to reply.

On 10 July, 01:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:46:54 +0100, "





wrote:
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?

Not showing the cab (go down to the bottom and select "Underground
trains" to get yourself in the right starting position). There is one
elsewhere :-http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/67%20TS%20Orig%20Cab%20Photos.htm
which seems to be a well-used London Transport Museum photo.
(the only image supplied by Google for +"1967 stock" +cab which
interestingly offers a scantily-clad young lady riding a bomb among
its selection). Possibly there are more in the LTM collection if those
are still available on-line.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So a combined one then, at least when built. So I was wrong about C69
being the first.

I guess that what's in the picture is exactly what they've got in 1972
stock now, but has it been changed since I wonder?

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 10 July, 01:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:46:54 +0100, "
wrote:
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 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?

Not showing the cab (go down to the bottom and select "Underground
trains" to get yourself in the right starting position). There is one
elsewhere

:-http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/67%20TS%20Orig%20Cab%20Photos.htm
which seems to be a well-used London Transport Museum photo.
(the only image supplied by Google for +"1967 stock" +cab which
interestingly offers a scantily-clad young lady riding a bomb among
its selection). Possibly there are more in the LTM collection if those
are still available on-line.- Hide quoted text -

So a combined one then, at least when built. So I was wrong about C69
being the first.

C69 stock was the first for conventional driving. The 67 TS was
automatically driven from new. Manual driving was not at full speed.

I guess that what's in the picture is exactly what they've got in
1972 stock now, but has it been changed since I wonder?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

It has always been my understanding 1972 stock remained so long in the
persistent rumours frame because LU had a surplus of these, even after
several were transferred to the Vic line, that were in store,
reluctant to part with them, so were the obvious target of rumour and
speculation.

Fleet replacement of 1972 and 1973 stock looks like receding into the
distance - Picc line new stock is rumoured almost certainly to get put
back along with resignalling to at least 2020 if not further, and one
would suggest Picc is higher priority than Bakerloo so the later is
not likely to leapfrog by default. 1967 stock has been so battered
with intensive ATO running of ~45 years by the time it could be
released in fleet quantity one could speculate it might not be in a
fit state for anything.

I've said it before I'll say it again.

The true IOW solution is new stock. Not new heavy weight trains or new
tube stock, but some kind of light rail / heavy tram device. If this
is affordable for Watford St.Albans it is affordable for IOW ((+)).

Cue howls of derision from this forum. But we must look outside past
practice. Old tube trains might have worked. Don't forget by 2020 all
the disabled access regs are in place. Old tube stock won't meet those
and will be exceedingly hard to make comply. So not only might there
not be any tube stock availabale in less than 10 12 or even 15 years,
it might be useless anyway.



((+)) And Lymington while we are at it.

--
Nick

On 10 July, 19:39, D7666 wrote:
It has always been my understanding 1972 stock remained so long in the
persistent rumours frame because LU had a surplus of these, even after
several were transferred to the Vic line, that were in store,
reluctant to part with them, so were the obvious target of rumour and
speculation.

Fleet replacement of 1972 and 1973 stock looks like receding into the
distance - Picc line new stock is rumoured almost certainly to get put
back along with resignalling to at least 2020 if not further, and one
would suggest Picc is higher priority than Bakerloo so the later is
not likely to leapfrog by default. 1967 stock has been so battered
with intensive ATO running of ~45 years by the time it could be
released in fleet quantity one could speculate it might not be in a
fit state for anything.

I've said it before I'll say it again.

The true IOW solution is new stock. Not new heavy weight trains or new
tube stock, but some kind of light rail / heavy tram device. If this
is affordable for Watford St.Albans it is affordable for IOW ((+)).

Cue howls of derision from this forum. But we must look outside past
practice. Old tube trains might have worked. Don't forget by 2020 all
the disabled access regs are in place. Old tube stock won't meet those
and will be exceedingly hard to make comply. So not only might there
not be any tube stock availabale in less than 10 12 or even 15 years,
it might be useless anyway.

((+)) And Lymington while we are at it.

--
Nick

Might the problem be the fleet size? But maybe they could do like the
Drain with the 1992 stock and have a run-order of something else.
Gawd forbid the 2009 stock, but if it wasn't so awful, why not?

In message
D7666 wrote:

[snip]
Cue howls of derision from this forum. But we must look outside past
practice. Old tube trains might have worked. Don't forget by 2020 all
the disabled access regs are in place. Old tube stock won't meet those
and will be exceedingly hard to make comply.

How does tube stock not comply with disabled access?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On 10/07/2010 19:39, D7666 wrote:
It has always been my understanding 1972 stock remained so long in the
persistent rumours frame because LU had a surplus of these, even after
several were transferred to the Vic line, that were in store,
reluctant to part with them, so were the obvious target of rumour and
speculation.

Fleet replacement of 1972 and 1973 stock looks like receding into the
distance - Picc line new stock is rumoured almost certainly to get put
back along with resignalling to at least 2020 if not further, and one
would suggest Picc is higher priority than Bakerloo so the later is
not likely to leapfrog by default. 1967 stock has been so battered
with intensive ATO running of ~45 years by the time it could be
released in fleet quantity one could speculate it might not be in a
fit state for anything.

I've said it before I'll say it again.

The true IOW solution is new stock. Not new heavy weight trains or new
tube stock, but some kind of light rail / heavy tram device. If this
is affordable for Watford St.Albans it is affordable for IOW ((+)).

Perhaps similar to the newer equipment on the Yellow Train, in France,
which can run on third rail?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/FichierSC00218.JPG

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:SNCF_Z_150.jpg


Cue howls of derision from this forum. But we must look outside past
practice. Old tube trains might have worked. Don't forget by 2020 all
the disabled access regs are in place. Old tube stock won't meet those
and will be exceedingly hard to make comply. So not only might there
not be any tube stock availabale in less than 10 12 or even 15 years,
it might be useless anyway.



I wonder, however, if they would not continue to operating equipment on
the Isle of Wight as they do on the Isle of Man?

On Jul 11, 12:24*pm, "
wrote:

I wonder, however, if they would not continue to operating equipment on
the Isle of Wight as they do on the Isle of Man?

Well maybe this is the way to go ... just continue .

--
Nick