On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, Boltar wrote:
On 5 Jul, 14:09, "Recliner" wrote:

Am I right in thinking that 1992 stock has smaller wheels than other
Tube trains and is perhaps more likely to derail when it encounters
something on the track?

It does seem strange that a heavy train could become derailed by
something light enough to have become dislodged by vibration or air
movements and apparently flap around in the wind.

B2003

"Our initial reports suggest that a bale of material became dislodged
from its licensed storage position in a tunnel cross-passage," said a
Metronet spokesman.

Whatever that means

Neill

On Jul 5, 2:41 pm, verbena wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, Boltar wrote:

On 5 Jul, 14:09, "Recliner" wrote:

Am I right in thinking that 1992 stock has smaller wheels than other
Tube trains and is perhaps more likely to derail when it encounters
something on the track?

It does seem strange that a heavy train could become derailed by
something light enough to have become dislodged by vibration or air
movements and apparently flap around in the wind.

B2003

"Our initial reports suggest that a bale of material became dislodged
from its licensed storage position in a tunnel cross-passage," said a
Metronet spokesman.

Whatever that means

Neill

'tunnel cross passage'
= A passageway between the eastbound and westbound tunnels

'licensed storage position'
= contractors need a licence to leave stuff they are using at specific
locations on LUL property. If there is room it saves them having to
bring it in every night. I think storage licensing has been required
ever since the Kings Cross fire which involved stuff under the
escalator which should not have been left there.

'bale of material'
= contractors stuff

'dislodged'
fell off the pile - possibly should have been better secured