Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

If suitable locos were available, could the 'slinger train' work in the SSL
tunnels at all?

Paul S

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking
and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what
short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth
etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

They will have to replace bullhead like for like until the sleepers & chairs
are replaced surely, and the sleepers can last a lot longer in the SSL
tunnels?

The renewals train I saw did seem to be placing CWR though, as I suggested
originally the previously completed sections are practically
indistinguishable from NR recent work (apart from the fourth rail!).

Paul

On Dec 14, 10:11*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

Neil

Within the confines of tube and sub-surface tunnels one would think
jointed track easier to work with than CWR.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:49:13 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 14, 10:11*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

Neil

Within the confines of tube and sub-surface tunnels one would think
jointed track easier to work with than CWR.

That IMU is the main reason for its continued use, IIRC there often
isn't sufficient clearance to allow use of the necessary equipment for
laying and fettling CWR and some of the curves would also invite
trouble. I've got an old programme for an open day at Neasden in
196mumble which features a CWR train so it isn't something LU have yet
to discover.

On Dec 15, 3:06*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:49:13 -0800 (PST), 1506





wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:11*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

Neil

Within the confines of tube and sub-surface tunnels one would think
jointed track easier to work with than CWR.

That IMU is the main reason for its continued use, IIRC there often
isn't sufficient clearance to allow use of the necessary equipment for
laying and fettling CWR and some of the curves would also invite
trouble. I've got an old programme for an open day at Neasden in
196mumble which features a CWR train so it isn't something LU have yet
to discover.

Quite, I am sure CWR could be used to good effect on the surface
section to Amersham, horses for courses.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:06:54 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 15, 3:06*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:49:13 -0800 (PST), 1506

wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:11*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between Barking and
Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I was wondering what short
of length they can do in a weekend, and if the renewed track is basically
done to the same standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four foot for
instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

Neil

Within the confines of tube and sub-surface tunnels one would think
jointed track easier to work with than CWR.

That IMU is the main reason for its continued use, IIRC there often
isn't sufficient clearance to allow use of the necessary equipment for
laying and fettling CWR and some of the curves would also invite
trouble. I've got an old programme for an open day at Neasden in
196mumble which features a CWR train so it isn't something LU have yet
to discover.

Quite, I am sure CWR could be used to good effect on the surface
section to Amersham, horses for courses.

They had CWR long before it took off on BR.

Because it was so new and nobody knew how to handle expansion, they
used what are best described as being like point blades sliding
against each other.

In article ,
(Christopher A. Lee) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:06:54 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 15, 3:06*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:49:13 -0800 (PST), 1506

wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:11*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:58:33 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Had a view of the District Line track replacement works between
Barking and Upminster yeaterday, from a passing c2c service. I
was wondering what short of length they can do in a weekend,
and if the renewed track is basically done to the same
standards as NR use, eg sleeper spacing, ballast depth etc.
I noticed the same orange tubing guarding cables in the four
foot for instance.

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed,
bullhead variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like
the mainline did years ago?

Within the confines of tube and sub-surface tunnels one would think
jointed track easier to work with than CWR.

That IMU is the main reason for its continued use, IIRC there often
isn't sufficient clearance to allow use of the necessary equipment
for laying and fettling CWR and some of the curves would also invite
trouble. I've got an old programme for an open day at Neasden in
196mumble which features a CWR train so it isn't something LU have
yet to discover.

Quite, I am sure CWR could be used to good effect on the surface
section to Amersham, horses for courses.

They had CWR long before it took off on BR.

Because it was so new and nobody knew how to handle expansion, they
used what are best described as being like point blades sliding
against each other.

BR/NR use(d) them too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Dec 14, 10:11=A0am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.

When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

There are two separate and distinct questions he

1. Fishplated v. welded rail: as others have remarked the Underground
has been using welded rails for many, many years. However, the Civil
Engineers always used to complain that the long rails they laid were
then cut into shorter lengths again by the Signal Engineers for
blockjoints. Because of the intense service traditional L.T.
signalling has many more signals per mile, and hence many more track
circuits, than most Network Rail lines.

2. Bullhead v. flat-bottomed rail: Flat-bottomed rail is now being
installed, even in tube tunnels, but this is comparatively recent.
Previously, the B.R. form of flat-bottomed rail installation gave a
greater sleeper-to-railhead distance than bullhead by an amount that
was significant in the close confines of a tube tunnel. There were
also questions about the having to redesign switch and crossing work
for flat-bottomed rail. I'm not sufficiently in touch to know the
details of how these problems were solved.

Cheers,
John

On Dec 16, 2:27*pm, (John S.Robinson) wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:11=A0am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

Not sure, but I noticed new track on the Met at Euston Square last
week, and was astonished to note that it was of the jointed, bullhead
variety.
When are LUL going to enter the 21st century and move to CWR like the
mainline did years ago?

There are two separate and distinct questions he

1. Fishplated v. welded rail: as others have remarked the Underground
has been using welded rails for many, many years. However, the Civil
Engineers always used to complain that the long rails they laid were
then cut into shorter lengths again by the Signal Engineers for
blockjoints. Because of the intense service traditional L.T.
signalling has many more signals per mile, and hence many more track
circuits, than most Network Rail lines.

2. Bullhead v. flat-bottomed rail: Flat-bottomed rail is now being
installed, even in tube tunnels, but this is comparatively recent.
Previously, the B.R. form of flat-bottomed rail installation gave a
greater sleeper-to-railhead distance than bullhead by an amount that
was significant in the close confines of a tube tunnel. There were
also questions about the having to redesign switch and crossing work
for flat-bottomed rail. I'm not sufficiently in touch to know the
details of how these problems were solved.

Thank you. That is very informative. I wonder if slab track would be
a good solution for the Circle Line. It is used on Thameslink.