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

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Apr 9, 5:57*pm, 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. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I
have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly
Line.

Ah, so is it maybe more to do with the tightness of bends rather than
the width? Would the 1973 stock already not be able to get round,
say, the Bakerloo, which is very bendy?

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On Apr 9, 5:57*pm, 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. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I
have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly
Line.

How silly to build a train that can't be moved on to another line for
whatever reason. I had no appreciation that this nonsense had been
sneaked through.

Ah, so is it maybe more to do with the tightness of bends rather than
the width? Would the 1973 stock already not be able to get round,
say, the Bakerloo, which is very bendy?

Don't know about the Bakerloo line but the 73 stock had a tight squeeze
when they first put a unit through the Picc Line. The twists and turns
at South Ken caused some problems apparently. Adjustments to the car
ends had to be made so I am told.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 9 Apr, 19:47, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

On Apr 9, 5:57 pm, 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. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I
have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly
Line.

How silly to build a train that can't be moved on to another line for
whatever reason. I had no appreciation that this nonsense had been
sneaked through.

This television news report on the new stock suggests that any extra
space will be put to good use for the benefit of passengers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5BvJa5DwqQ

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.

On Apr 9, 8:41*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 19:47, Paul Corfield wrote:





On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

On Apr 9, 5:57 pm, 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. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I
have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly
Line.

How silly to build a train that can't be moved on to another line for
whatever reason. *I had no appreciation that this nonsense had been
sneaked through.

This television news report on the new stock suggests that any extra
space will be put to good use for the benefit of passengers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5BvJa5DwqQ

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.


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.


When you look at the way the 1972 stock got shunted around (and mixed
with 1967 stock), and the way the 1938, 1959 and 1962 stock also got
moved around and reformed, it does seem as if all kinds of options for
for future cascades have been ruled out.

Or ... could they end up being cascaded to a sub-surface line at some
point in the future (the only other place they'll fit)?

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 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/...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.

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.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

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, 21:43, 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.

"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).