"Mizter T" wrote in message



Anyway the later pages of this thread on District Dave suggests that
the Vic line stock will be delivered by rail to Ruislip depot and will
then run via the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines to reach the
Victoria line, and also that there have already been gauging test runs
to determine if this route will be possible (see in particular the
third post down by 'towerman'):

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...976388&page=10


So if this goes to plan the trains might not be able to run on other
tube lines in service (though really why would they need to?) but it
will be possible to move them by rail on and off the network.

Isn't it already increasingly the case that stocks can only work on
their 'home' lines? For example, I think the 1992 stock can't be used
on any but the central lines and vice versa. I know the 1995 and 1996
stocks aren't compatible, though I don't know if they could work on each
other's lines. Apart from the physical dimensions, the signalling isn't
mutually compatible.

But at least the S stock will be the first sub-surface stock in a long
time that can work on any of the sub-surface lines (though the 8-car Met
trains won't fit into some Circle line platforms).

On 9 Apr, 21:43, Paul Corfield wrote:
If that's correct then fine. The ability to move them about in non
passenger service if / when needed is the main thing. I just think it
is daft to move trains by road when it's perfectly sensible to shift
them by rail if at all possible.

Especially since it'll prevent even more bottlenecks on clogged up
roads in that part of tottenham anyway. Unless they move them at 2am
or something.

B2003

On 9 Apr, 21:18, MIG wrote:
Nah, they'll just keep making the walls thicker and thicker.

Honestly, why must modern trains have four-inch thick hollow walls?
Thin, space-maximising walls with no poky-into-your-arm ledges are
attractive features of both A stock and Desiros.

Not to mention plenty of other trains on other metro systems such as
New York. It seems new train interiors in this country whether LU or
national rail seem to have a sort of pseudo nursery school look with
big chunky fittings everywhere. If Fischer Price were ever to design
train interiors they'd probably get a lot of business from the UK rail
industry.

B2003

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote:

Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much
larger are they?

Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a
few feet longer.

My understanding, based on things i've read about the JLE, is that the
speed at which a train can run is limited in part by the clearance between
the train and the tunnel wall - for aerodynamic as much as kinematic
reasons. Does this mean that the new obese Vic trains won't go as fast?

Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

tom

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith

On 9 Apr, 21:43, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:41:13 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Anyway the later pages of this thread on District Dave suggests that
the Vic line stock will be delivered by rail to Ruislip depot and will
then run via the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines to reach the
Victoria line, and also that there have already been gauging test runs
to determine if this route will be possible (see in particular the
third post down by 'towerman'):

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...ictoria&action...

So if this goes to plan the trains might not be able to run on other
tube lines in service (though really why would they need to?) but it
will be possible to move them by rail on and off the network.

If that's correct then fine. The ability to move them about in non
passenger service if / when needed is the main thing. I just think it
is daft to move trains by road when it's perfectly sensible to shift
them by rail if at all possible.


I couldn't agree more with your thoughts.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

A lack of suitable traction power might hamper any bid for freedom...
(unless dragged)

On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote:

Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much
larger are they?

Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a
few feet longer.

My understanding, based on things i've read about the JLE, is that the
speed at which a train can run is limited in part by the clearance between
the train and the tunnel wall - for aerodynamic as much as kinematic
reasons. Does this mean that the new obese Vic trains won't go as fast?


I thought one of the main benefits of the larger diameter the JLE
tunnels was that of ventilation and keeping the whole thing cooler?



Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.


No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

I don't think there'd be any problem finding the space to fit in a
connection, but I suppose it just wouldn't be worth the cost - easier
and cheaper to sort out any problems in the Piccadilly line tunnels to
allow these new Vic trains to pass through them en-route to the
Northumberland Park depot (see my post upthread which suggests that
the new stock *will* in fact be delivered by rail, not road).

Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't
know if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

Since the depot was previously a rail depot of some sort, the connection
must actually have been taken out when the Vic was built.

On Apr 10, 12:16 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote:

Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much
larger are they?

Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a
few feet longer.

My understanding, based on things i've read about the JLE, is that the
speed at which a train can run is limited in part by the clearance between
the train and the tunnel wall - for aerodynamic as much as kinematic
reasons. Does this mean that the new obese Vic trains won't go as fast?

I thought one of the main benefits of the larger diameter the JLE
tunnels was that of ventilation and keeping the whole thing cooler?



Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

I don't think there'd be any problem finding the space to fit in a
connection, but I suppose it just wouldn't be worth the cost - easier
and cheaper to sort out any problems in the Piccadilly line tunnels to
allow these new Vic trains to pass through them en-route to the
Northumberland Park depot (see my post upthread which suggests that
the new stock *will* in fact be delivered by rail, not road).

Trials were carried out a few months back after close of traffic with
a 67TS with polystyrene strips on running on the Piccadilly to
Finsbury Park Victoria. I don't know the outcome though!

On 10 Apr, 10:06, chunky munky wrote:

On Apr 10, 12:16 am, Mizter T wrote:

On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

(snip)

Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

I don't think there'd be any problem finding the space to fit in a
connection, but I suppose it just wouldn't be worth the cost - easier
and cheaper to sort out any problems in the Piccadilly line tunnels to
allow these new Vic trains to pass through them en-route to the
Northumberland Park depot (see my post upthread which suggests that
the new stock *will* in fact be delivered by rail, not road).

Trials were carried out a few months back after close of traffic with
a 67TS with polystyrene strips on running on the Piccadilly to
Finsbury Park Victoria. I don't know the outcome though!


Have any Piccadilly line regulars seen a blizzard of polystyrene
flakes recently me wonders?!