"Leo Mindel" wrote in message
...
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)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one they
redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two main things I
noticed the press or opens have been removed (well there were never turned
on anyway) and there are big disabled stickers on the end doors.

Also all the glass looks to be heavily tinted (I think they were anyway on
this stock) so I guess that is the poor man's Air Conditioning fitted

I just wish they had chosen a different colour scheme though.

As the indicators on the Wimbledon branch line are often wrong (it will say
its an Edgware Road train when its really a City service and vice versa)
using the different colours was a useful way of telling the "true"
destination very easily.

True, if you travel frequently, you know that the carriage's look different
but it was so much easier to describe to other people ("wait on platform for
a red/blue coloured train" or a "white" train)

However, having travelled on the refurbished new stock, at least it looks
nice inside..

Regards
Sunil

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?

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

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?

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:50:13 GMT, Jack Taylor wrote:

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?

No, which is why I would very much appreciate the reinstatement of some
of the "slow lines" that have disappeared from 1979 onwards, and the
addition of some new ones where practicable.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767288.html
(Gatwick Express, Mark 1: 4VEG unit 7910 at London Victoria in 1980)

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...

I would very much appreciate the reinstatement of some
of the "slow lines" that have disappeared from 1979 onwards, and the
addition of some new ones where practicable.

Hear, hear! We are repeatedly told that we have a rapidly growing railway,
both in passenger and freight terms, and yet there is complete reluctance to
invest in the infrastructure that will perpetuate the growth (such as the
reinstatement of removed loops, redoubling of singled "slow" lines such as
on the Midland main line and restoration of mothballed diversionary and
secondary routes). The establishment of the SRA has only worsened the
problems - never was the word "strategic" less appropriately used. According
to this month's "Modern Railways" one of the loops on the GWML is the latest
casualty of cutbacks, which will further restrict lower speed movements on
that route.

Unfortunately, since accountants were given carte blanche to take over the
management of British industry we have seen this myopic approach adopted in
many areas, the only figures of interest to these people being the current
year's balance sheet. The sooner that 'broader thinkers' return to the fore
and long-term, joined-up thinking is employed, the better. If the current
mentality had been prominent in the nineteenth century then we wouldn't have
a railway system at all!