I think it may have also had something to do with Health and Safety.

I know they're a bunch of simpering lettuces but surely even the HSE
can't think that
confused passengers is a health and safety issue??

B2003

Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next to a

freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to Ealing depot)

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on
a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will inevitably cause
as it moves
at a snails pace)?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on
a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will inevitably cause
as it moves
at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are fewer and
fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would you
appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer of London
Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

Boltar wrote:
I think it may have also had something to do with Health and
Safety.

I know they're a bunch of simpering lettuces but surely even the HSE
can't think that confused passengers is a health and safety issue??

IIRC there was a problem on the Central Line (92 stock has door open and
close buttons) where people were pressing the close button which caused
the doors to close on following passengers and (allegedly) injure them.
I don't know whether in those circumstances the warning note is sounded,
but on 92 stock the doors start to move before the warning sounds, which
isn't helpful. I haven't noticed that it's a problem with NR stock
where door close buttons are provided.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Jack Taylor wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on
a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will inevitably
cause
as it moves
at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are
fewer and
fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would you
appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer of
London
Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving
low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on windy B
road?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving
low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on windy B
road?

You would have thought so - but there are many other factors to take into
consideration also (especially for overnight journeys). For example, train
planning would be involved, in order to roster crews, locomotives and
prepare paths for the movement; the issue (especially overnight) of
engineering work and whether or not signalling centres are open for the
required route (quite a few routes have no overnight cover any more) comes
into the equation. The cost of preparing a train plan and implementing it
may well have made the quoted price to LUL unacceptable and it is far easier
to contract Allelys (or whoever) to do the work. For most of the journeys
major roads and motorways are used for transportation and smaller roads are
only used at the extreme ends of the journey - there is no cost to the
haulier (unless a police escort is required and charged for) for
inconveniencing motorists, whereas Network Rail and the FOCs would factor
such inconvenience into their costs.

only used at the extreme ends of the journey - there is no cost to the

haulier (unless a police escort is required and charged for) for
nconveniencing motorists, whereas Network Rail and the FOCs would
factor
such inconvenience into their costs.

Yes , I guess you're right. Does seem a bit silly tho. After all, if
you need to
tow a road vehicle somewhere you don't stick it on a train.

Incidentaly , just out of interest , what is the max speed for LUL
stock when
being hauled dead by rail?

B2003

On 4 Apr 2005, Boltar wrote:


Jack Taylor wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will
inevitably cause as it moves at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are fewer
and fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would
you appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer
of London Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on windy
B road?

You'd think they could at least put it on a swapbody and move *that* by
rail, at a decent speed, in the normal manner of rail freight.

But, as Jack said, they presumably looked into this and found it would be
more expensive. Pretty poor show by rail freight there .

tom

--
The ``is'' keyword binds with the same precedence as ``.'', even when it's not actually there. -- Larry Wall, Apocalypse 2

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes , I guess you're right. Does seem a bit silly tho. After all, if
you need to tow a road vehicle somewhere you don't stick it on a train.

Incidentaly , just out of interest , what is the max speed for LUL
stock when being hauled dead by rail?

Ah, good question! It depends very much on the brake that can be applied and
the effectiveness of the translator vehicles, plus (I would imagine) whether
the motors are disconnected or not. I'd be surprised if the maximum speed
was very high. IIRC, when the Met line A stock was taken to Derby for
refurbishment (via Amersham, Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Greenford, Reading,
Didcot, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Solihull and Tamworth - quite a circuitous
route) it was limited to a maximum speed of 40mph and moved on a Saturday,
two sets at a time, to reduce the inconvenience to other traffic. I'll have
to check with a mate of mine who was an Acton driver at the time and took
several of the trains through.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005, Boltar wrote:


Jack Taylor wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will
inevitably cause as it moves at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are
fewer and fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the
country. Would you appreciate your 125mph train being delayed
whilst a 40mph transfer of London Underground stock limped into a
loop ahead of you?

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on
windy B road?

You'd think they could at least put it on a swapbody and move *that*
by rail, at a decent speed, in the normal manner of rail freight.

But, as Jack said, they presumably looked into this and found it
would be more expensive. Pretty poor show by rail freight there .


The real cost of moving "dead" rail vehicles is down to Network Rail's
access charges. These are such that even mainline TOCs move locos and other
vehicles by road because it's cheaper. Stupid or what?