On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:52:16 -0500
wrote:
Too much steel/ali combination underneath to cope with the sea spray on
Ryde Pier and not rot through electrolytic corrosion.

I'm sure a bit of judicious anti corrosion paint or galvanisation
would sort that out. Or perhaps put baffles up on ryde pier so
there's less spray.

That won't work on aluminium. I suggest you learn some chemistry and
metallurgy.

Well perhaps I would if I had time to do a 3 year degree in it. Obviously
you're an expert so fill us in on why you can't and how Audi and Jag manage
it with their aluminium bodied cars.

B2003

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:52:16 -0500
wrote:
Too much steel/ali combination underneath to cope with the sea spray
on Ryde Pier and not rot through electrolytic corrosion.

I'm sure a bit of judicious anti corrosion paint or galvanisation
would sort that out. Or perhaps put baffles up on ryde pier so
there's less spray.

That won't work on aluminium. I suggest you learn some chemistry and
metallurgy.

Well perhaps I would if I had time to do a 3 year degree in it. Obviously
you're an expert so fill us in on why you can't and how Audi and Jag
manage it with their aluminium bodied cars.

They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an issue
on the underground which doesn't use salt for de-icing. I don't think there
is anywhere else on the UK rail network as challenging to the undersides of
rolling stock as Ryde Pier.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...

They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an
issue
on the underground which doesn't use salt for de-icing. I don't think
there
is anywhere else on the UK rail network as challenging to the undersides
of
rolling stock as Ryde Pier.

There's little point anyway in debating the whys and wherefores of Victoria
line stock, because SWT have said a couple of times they are penciled in for
'73 stock from the Piccadilly...

I did read that 67 stock was considered but ruled out because there are no
cab side doors?

Paul S

On 18/07/2012 19:44, Paul Scott wrote:
wrote in message
...

They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an
issue
on the underground which doesn't use salt for de-icing. I don't think
there
is anywhere else on the UK rail network as challenging to the
undersides of
rolling stock as Ryde Pier.

There's little point anyway in debating the whys and wherefores of
Victoria line stock, because SWT have said a couple of times they are
penciled in for '73 stock from the Piccadilly...

I did read that 67 stock was considered but ruled out because there are
no cab side doors?

Paul S

Too much modification required for 67 stock to operate on the Island
Line, perhaps?

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:48:30 -0500
wrote:
They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an issue

Well how does that work then? Are you saying the engine bay and suspension is
completely sealed? Because there's going to be a lot of steel touching
aluminium in there which will have to deal with winter salt.

on the underground which doesn't use salt for de-icing. I don't think there
is anywhere else on the UK rail network as challenging to the undersides of
rolling stock as Ryde Pier.

Probably not.

B2003

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:48:30 -0500
wrote:
They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an
issue

Well how does that work then? Are you saying the engine bay and
suspension is completely sealed? Because there's going to be a lot of
steel touching aluminium in there which will have to deal with winter
salt.

Not on the scale needed for IOW trains.

on the underground which doesn't use salt for de-icing. I don't think
there is anywhere else on the UK rail network as challenging to the
undersides of rolling stock as Ryde Pier.

Probably not.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:33:02 AM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
"Dr. Sunil" > wrote:
>On Monday, July 16, 2012 9:27:25 AM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
>> I rode on one of the new(ish) DLR trains for the first time on sunday. Going
>> at full pelt from shadwell to westferry there wasn't any wobble at the
>> front at all. So there was a design fault with the old trains which the TfL
>> apologists on here constantly denied despite being asked why no other tram
>> system exhibited it. Either that or its magic, take your pick.
>>
>> B2003
>
>Sorry which new trains are these? The latest "new" trains that I know of are
>at least four years old.

Thats why I said new(ish). It would help if people would learn to read.
And they're not all four years old.

B2003

No need to be rude. If you read my subsequent post I said they were delivered in two batches in 2007 and 2010.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:57:42 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:48:30 -0500
wrote:
They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an
issue

Well how does that work then? Are you saying the engine bay and
suspension is completely sealed? Because there's going to be a lot of
steel touching aluminium in there which will have to deal with winter
salt.

Not on the scale needed for IOW trains.

Corrision is corrosion. You implied there was some chemical reason the
trains couldn't be treated, now you're just saying its an issue of scale.
Make your mind up.

B2003

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
"Dr. Sunil" wrote:
No need to be rude. If you read my subsequent post I said they were delivered
in two batches in 2007 and 2010.

In one post you state 2010, in the other you state the latest ones are 4 years
old. Its 2012 , not 2014. And I'd call something built in 2010 newish.

B2003

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:57:42 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:48:30 -0500
wrote:
They were designed from the start to keep out water underneath, not an
issue

Well how does that work then? Are you saying the engine bay and
suspension is completely sealed? Because there's going to be a lot of
steel touching aluminium in there which will have to deal with winter
salt.

Not on the scale needed for IOW trains.

Corrision is corrosion. You implied there was some chemical reason the
trains couldn't be treated, now you're just saying its an issue of scale.
Make your mind up.

Go on then, clever clogs. You try it!

--
Colin Rosenstiel