"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
wrote:

[snip]

I know that the 62As on the Metropolitan Line are due to be replaced in
the
next year or so. Would they not make a more suitable alternative for the
Island Line? Would the loading gauges be an issue?


Yes, there's a very low bridge[1] in Ryde that requires the use small
stock,
hence the reason for choosing tube stock in the first place.

[1] And possibly others elsewhere on the system.

--
Have they always used Tube stock on the Island Line since its
electrification in the 60s?

wrote:

How much of an issue is corrosion on the Island Line? Are they really on the
pier for long enough periods of time that it can become problematic?


Good questions!

I'm no expert on corrosion, but I do know that dissimilar metals in a
marine environment can cause no end of problems. Once exposed to salt
spray, an electrolytic reaction starts between the metals using salt
water as the electrolyte. There is very little you can do to stop it.

So the issue is not how long they spend on the pier. I think the issue
is that they get sprayed with salt water and that sets up a corrosion
mechanism that continues while they are away from the pier, and into the
long term.

wrote:

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
wrote:

[snip]

I know that the 62As on the Metropolitan Line are due to be replaced in
the
next year or so. Would they not make a more suitable alternative for the
Island Line? Would the loading gauges be an issue?


Yes, there's a very low bridge[1] in Ryde that requires the use small
stock,
hence the reason for choosing tube stock in the first place.

[1] And possibly others elsewhere on the system.

--
Have they always used Tube stock on the Island Line since its
electrification in the 60s?



Yes, they started off with 1929 "Standard" Stock, which had some of the
traction equipment mounted above the floor in motor cars. It was
intended that the Standard Stock would last for 10 years, presumably
during which permanent replacements would be designed, built and shipped
to the Island. Of course that didn't happen. ;-)

They eventually became BR Class 485 and 486:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...Standard_Stock

The Standard Stock struggled on until replaced by the 1938 stock in the
late 1980s. The 1938 Stock became BR Class 483:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...und_1938_Stock

wrote

Have they always used Tube stock on the Island Line since its
electrification in the 60s?
Yes - when it was electrified in 1967 they used 1926 stock, which had come
from the Piccadilly Line. This was replaced in the mid-1980s by the current
1938 stock.

The 1926 stock was formed, on the Island, into 4 car sets with a driving car
at each end, labelled in SR tradition as 4VEC, and 3-car sets which IIRC
only had a driving car at one end and labelled 3TIS. On Summer Saturdays the
holiday traffic required a 7-car train every 12 minutes - and there was a
seprate service of petrol-driven trams between Pier Head and Esplanade.

Peter

On Wed, 6 May 2009 23:18:58 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



wrote

Have they always used Tube stock on the Island Line since its
electrification in the 60s?
Yes - when it was electrified in 1967 they used 1926 stock, which had come
from the Piccadilly Line. This was replaced in the mid-1980s by the current
1938 stock.

The 1926 stock was formed, on the Island, into 4 car sets with a driving car
at each end, labelled in SR tradition as 4VEC, and 3-car sets which IIRC
only had a driving car at one end and labelled 3TIS. On Summer Saturdays the
holiday traffic required a 7-car train every 12 minutes - and there was a
seprate service of petrol-driven trams between Pier Head and Esplanade.

Britain's last surviving clerestory stock in service.

They used ex-tube stock because of the reduced loading gauge which
precluded regular main line stock.
Peter

On Wed, 06 May 2009 23:15:06 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

wrote:

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
wrote:

[snip]

I know that the 62As on the Metropolitan Line are due to be replaced in
the
next year or so. Would they not make a more suitable alternative for the
Island Line? Would the loading gauges be an issue?


Yes, there's a very low bridge[1] in Ryde that requires the use small
stock,
hence the reason for choosing tube stock in the first place.

[1] And possibly others elsewhere on the system.

--
Have they always used Tube stock on the Island Line since its
electrification in the 60s?



Yes, they started off with 1929 "Standard" Stock, which had some of the
traction equipment mounted above the floor in motor cars. It was
intended that the Standard Stock would last for 10 years, presumably
during which permanent replacements would be designed, built and shipped
to the Island. Of course that didn't happen. ;-)

They eventually became BR Class 485 and 486:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...Standard_Stock

The Standard Stock struggled on until replaced by the 1938 stock in the
late 1980s. The 1938 Stock became BR Class 483:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...und_1938_Stock

AFAIR another reason for the continuing use of older tube stock is
that the motors and underfloor equipment on newer types would need
extra protection against salt spray at Ryde Pier, the alternative
being truncation of the service away from the sea.

wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .

Perhaps some more recent Tube stock could be purchased instead? The
Victoria Line stock is being replaced. I know its alloy construction
would be less than ideal but perhaps some high tech corrosion protection
could be applied? Using old rolling stock on the Island is in keeping
with the long established tradition of using secondhand stock from the
mainland.

I'm guessing that it would be difficult to put 67Ts on the Island Line
because of the modifications that would be required, besides just for the
3rd rail shoes.

Victoria stock is built primarily to run on ATO. I believe that, even in
coded manual, the 67TS is designed not to exceed 25 miles -- to say nothing
of what their speeds would be if they were set at uncoded manual. In
comparison, permitted speeds on the Island Line are 45 miles.

I'm really not sure what sort of modifications would need to be carried out
on Victoria stock for that, however. Is it possible that they could just cut
out certain circuit breakers?

One other thing that Victoria stock would require on the IOW are trip cocks.
AFAIK, 67TS trains do not have them and they would have to be installed,
unless there are plans to carry out major modifications to the Island Line's
signalling infratsructure. Again, however, I don't know what sort of work
would be required to install trip cocks on 67TS stock.

I know that the 62As on the Metropolitan Line are due to be replaced in the
next year or so. Would they not make a more suitable alternative for the
Island Line? Would the loading gauges be an issue?

Perhaps the 313s would be more suitable as they are also due to be replaced
and require guards?



Unfortunately, both the LUL A62 and ex-BR Class 313 stock are too tall
for the tunnel at Ryde St John's Road, whose tight clearances define the
structure gauge for the Island Line.

On Wed, 06 May 2009 23:30:33 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
. ..

Perhaps some more recent Tube stock could be purchased instead? The
Victoria Line stock is being replaced. I know its alloy construction
would be less than ideal but perhaps some high tech corrosion protection
could be applied? Using old rolling stock on the Island is in keeping
with the long established tradition of using secondhand stock from the
mainland.

I'm guessing that it would be difficult to put 67Ts on the Island Line
because of the modifications that would be required, besides just for the
3rd rail shoes.

Victoria stock is built primarily to run on ATO. I believe that, even in
coded manual, the 67TS is designed not to exceed 25 miles -- to say nothing
of what their speeds would be if they were set at uncoded manual. In
comparison, permitted speeds on the Island Line are 45 miles.

I'm really not sure what sort of modifications would need to be carried out
on Victoria stock for that, however. Is it possible that they could just cut
out certain circuit breakers?

One other thing that Victoria stock would require on the IOW are trip cocks.
AFAIK, 67TS trains do not have them and they would have to be installed,
unless there are plans to carry out major modifications to the Island Line's
signalling infratsructure. Again, however, I don't know what sort of work
would be required to install trip cocks on 67TS stock.

I know that the 62As on the Metropolitan Line are due to be replaced in the
next year or so. Would they not make a more suitable alternative for the
Island Line? Would the loading gauges be an issue?

Perhaps the 313s would be more suitable as they are also due to be replaced
and require guards?



Unfortunately, both the LUL A62 and ex-BR Class 313 stock are too tall
for the tunnel at Ryde St John's Road, whose tight clearances define the
structure gauge for the Island Line.

A stock is out of gauge for the mainland anyway.

Charles Ellson wrote:

AFAIR another reason for the continuing use of older tube stock is
that the motors and underfloor equipment on newer types would need
extra protection against salt spray at Ryde Pier, the alternative
being truncation of the service away from the sea.


Yet the busiest sector of the Island Line - by far - is the one between
Ryde Pier and Ryde Esplanade.

Charles Ellson wrote:

A stock is out of gauge for the mainland anyway.


But that doesn't stop it being delivered by road!

The final leg from the mainland has to be by road anyway, so why not use
road all the way from Acton Works?