Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for scrapping? I
ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a low loader going through
Eastleigh.

On Jul 6, 10:26*am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for scrapping? * I
ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a low loader going through
Eastleigh.

Most of the tube stock that's ever headed in that sort of direction
has been en route for the Isle of Wight. I've heard it said that
Victoria Line stock would be no use for the Island but maybe someone's
decided to have a closer look. Just a thought.

"W14_Fishbourne" wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 10:26 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for scrapping? I
ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a low loader going
through
Eastleigh.

Most of the tube stock that's ever headed in that sort of direction
has been en route for the Isle of Wight. I've heard it said that
Victoria Line stock would be no use for the Island but maybe someone's
decided to have a closer look. Just a thought.


I've heard the IOW will be getting replacement stock soon.

As far as im aware, it remains the case that ex-Picc stock will be
heading for the Island - with its withdrawal now pushed back, SWT have
stated that the current trains will not be replaced during the current
franchise (up to 2018 i believe).

Chris

In article ,
(Graham Harrison) wrote:

Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for
scrapping? I ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a
low loader going through Eastleigh.

Are they being sensible enough to send some to the Isle of Wight?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 07/07/2011 22:50, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:54:13 -0500,
wrote:

In ,
(Graham Harrison) wrote:

Is some/all of the Victoria Line stock going to Eastleigh for
scrapping? I ask because I caught a glimpse of one carriage on a
low loader going through Eastleigh.

Are they being sensible enough to send some to the Isle of Wight?

At the risk of being branded a heretic isn't it time the Isle of Wight
got offered something a little more up to date than 40 year old trains
When tube stock was first sent across the traffic still needed 4 car
and 7 car trains and the line had more double track than it has now. 2
car operation is now the norm.
Perhaps Trams could be more suitable,lighter on power demand, lighter
on the track, easier to increase the service with a couple of passing
loops and much simpler signaling. Longer term save money pumping
the tunnel dry and return to the street route used by the original
pier trams. New vehicles will probably be too expensive but possibly
there are some second hand ones around as Continental cities upgrade
their fleets.
G.Harman


Why can't they just put in the money to raise the bridge?

In message ,
" writes

Why can't they just put in the money to raise the bridge?

It's a quarter of a mile long tunnel, not a bridge.

--
Paul Terry

In message ,
writes

Perhaps Trams could be more suitable

That has been proposed. The scheme (from Bombardier) is to build a tram
tunnel under the Solent to Gosport, from where trams would use the
existing road network to Fort Rowner, and then disused rail track to a
terminus at Fareham, offering cross-platform interchange with Network
Rail.

On the island, once the SWT franchise expires, the trams would take over
the island line, and there is an ambition to reopen the Sandown to
Newport line for trams.

I don't think it was particularly well received. A lot of traffic is
seasonal, making it difficult to justify the cost of the Solent tunnel
(although the underwater part needs only to be about a mile in length).
There was huge opposition from the ferry companies, naturally, and the
residents seem to feel that a major part of the island's attraction is
its relative inaccessibility!

This proposal didn't include using the St John's Road tunnel, though,
where I think there wouldn't be enough clearance for a tram's overhead
gear - although I wouldn't have thought it beyond the wit of engineers
to use battery power plus a system for automatically lowering the
overhead gear (as on the Rome trolleybus network).
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

This proposal didn't include using the St John's Road tunnel,
though, where I think there wouldn't be enough clearance for a
tram's overhead gear - although I wouldn't have thought it beyond
the wit of engineers to use battery power plus a system for
automatically lowering the overhead gear (as on the Rome trolleybus
network).

Space for the overhead line isn't the problem. Single deck trams are much
taller than tube trains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes

Space for the overhead line isn't the problem. Single deck trams are much
taller than tube trains.

There's quite a bit of clearance above the height of a tube train:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard...s/z/in/photost
ream/

In fact, at one stage BR class 503s from Merseyside were going to be
used on the line. Here's a rare picture of clearance trials:

http://www.gscalecentral.co.uk/f/dow...?file=1;127888

However, the length of the 503s proved to be a problem, as there is a
tight S-bend in the tunnel, hence the adoption of tube stock (plus, the
aluminium-bodied stock was much better able to cope with salt spray on
the pier).

If the tram proposal does go ahead (which I think is unlikely), it is
more likely to adopt street running, as the proposal for the Ryde Relief
Road would take traffic away from the Esplanade (which is currently the
main road through the town).

--
Paul Terry