More Piccys from the IOW
 

In article ,
() 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?

I remember being told many years ago that their aluminium bodies on steel
underframes was why no 1959/62 stock ever went to the island.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In article , ()
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. In order to cope with flooding in Ryde they had to raise the track to
the point where only tube stock would fit. From electrification they used
Standard stock and, since 1989, 1938 stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

More Piccys from the IOW
 

On Wed, 06 May 2009 23:49:36 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

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?

After the roof chop and the reduction in width so that it could work
on the island ?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 23:49:36 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

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?

After the roof chop and the reduction in width so that it could work
on the island ?


Of course. ;-)

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In message
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, 1929/1931 stock (class 485 in BR parlance). I'll post some photos
later.

Originally they were marshalled in 3 and 4 car sets and some wit labelled
them 4-VEC and 3-TIS units so trains would be formed in service of 1 x 3 and
1 x 4 car sets thus becoming 4-VEC+3-TIS. Vectis is the Roman name for the
island.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In message
Tony Polson wrote:

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?


IIRC the tube stock was delivered by rail to Eastleigh and then by road,
utilising the Wightlink ferries from Camber Dock in Portsmouth.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In message , rail
writes

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.

If it was merely a bridge, it could be rebuilt. The difficulty is Ryde
tunnel, which is almost a quarter of a mile in length and prone to
flooding. That wasn't a great problem in the days of steam, but when the
system was electrified, the only way to avoid constant short circuiting
was to raise the base of the tunnel by about a foot, hence the very
restricted headroom.
--
Paul Terry

More Piccys from the IOW
 

On Thu, 7 May 2009 09:37:10 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
If it was merely a bridge, it could be rebuilt. The difficulty is Ryde
tunnel, which is almost a quarter of a mile in length and prone to
flooding. That wasn't a great problem in the days of steam, but when the
system was electrified, the only way to avoid constant short circuiting
was to raise the base of the tunnel by about a foot, hence the very
restricted headroom.

You'd think by now they could just install some decent pumps. The
water seepage can't be much worse than what the tube experiences despite
the sea being nearby. Isn't it rumoured that most central london tube
stations would flood within a day if all the pumps were switched off?

B2003

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In message
wrote:

On Thu, 7 May 2009 09:37:10 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
If it was merely a bridge, it could be rebuilt. The difficulty is Ryde
tunnel, which is almost a quarter of a mile in length and prone to
flooding. That wasn't a great problem in the days of steam, but when the
system was electrified, the only way to avoid constant short circuiting
was to raise the base of the tunnel by about a foot, hence the very
restricted headroom.

You'd think by now they could just install some decent pumps. The
water seepage can't be much worse than what the tube experiences despite
the sea being nearby. Isn't it rumoured that most central london tube
stations would flood within a day if all the pumps were switched off?


The whole system was done very much on the cheap, if it hadn't been the line
would simply have been closed. When they can no longer acquire suitable
second hand stock there will have to be a major rethink.

Despite Polson's Petulant Whining� rebuilding as a light railway with street
running to avoid the tunnel is an option that has been considered in the
past.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
wrote:


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:


Any Standard Stock still lying about, say stabled out of sight at Ryde St.
John's? Do they ever take them out for a bit of a joyride?