More Piccys from the IOW
 

On May 5, 8:40*am, "Pat O'Neill" wrote:
http://patrickoneill204.fotopic.net/p58004145.html

"Perfick", beautiful. These remind me of my teenage years in London.
The '38 stock was truly iconic.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 8:40 am, "Pat O'Neill" wrote:
http://patrickoneill204.fotopic.net/p58004145.html

"Perfick", beautiful. These remind me of my teenage years in London.
The '38 stock was truly iconic.

and it looks a great deal better than it did in Network SouthEast or
Dinosaur livery.

Peter

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"Peter Masson" wrote:

and it looks a great deal better than it did in Network SouthEast or
Dinosaur livery.


It's a big improvement on the dinosaur livery, I agree.

But I think the application of NSE livery to the IOW trains was
beautifully done, inside and out, and overall they were a credit to BR.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

Tony Polson wrote:
"Peter Masson" wrote:

and it looks a great deal better than it did in Network SouthEast or
Dinosaur livery.


It's a big improvement on the dinosaur livery, I agree.

But I think the application of NSE livery to the IOW trains was
beautifully done, inside and out, and overall they were a credit to
BR.

They were, but the 1938 stock does look 'normal' in red. Anything else just
doesn't seem right.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In article ,
(Tony Polson) wrote:

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.

Isn't the problem with older tube stock, including the 1967/72 TS, that it
isn't alloy enough? In other words the combination of aluminium bodies on
steel underframes is the real corrosion headache on Ryde Pier?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

More Piccys from the IOW
 

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"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?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article ,
(Tony Polson) wrote:

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.

Isn't the problem with older tube stock, including the 1967/72 TS, that it
isn't alloy enough? In other words the combination of aluminium bodies on
steel underframes is the real corrosion headache on Ryde Pier?


Quite possibly.

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?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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.

--
Graeme Wall

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

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"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?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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?

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?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...

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.

Teflon coating of some sort, perhaps?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
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.

Have they thought of perhaps running some sort of shuttle service from Ryde
Pier Head to Ryde Esplanade, allowing passengers to transfer to other
rolling stock? My guess is that this would not really be feasible, however.

A long ways off, I know, but what's the deal with building an underwater
connection between the Island and mainland?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

On Thu, 07 May 2009 11:02:19 +0100
rail wrote:
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.

Can't see that happening myself. It would cost a fortune not just to build
the new section but to convert the entire line to OHLE and no doubt 'Elf N
Softies would stick their ore in about that. And thats before they have to
find the trams from somewhere. I doubt there are many scrap value 70 year old
trams for cheap sale like their were tube trains :)

B2003

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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


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.

Fair enough. But would it actually be feasible to bring in 67Ts stock or
would too many modifications indeed be required? If that is the case, I
noticed that some of Victoria Line trains' current make ups consist of 72Ts
stock. Would there be enough of them for the Island Line's requirements?

And what about the 83Ts, which used to run on the Jubilee, as an option?
Those actually might be good for the Island line, because I believe that
they required guards.

More Piccys from the IOW
 

In message
wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
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.

Have they thought of perhaps running some sort of shuttle service from Ryde
Pier Head to Ryde Esplanade, allowing passengers to transfer to other
rolling stock? My guess is that this would not really be feasible, however.

There used to be a tramway shuttle that did exactly that back in the dim and
distant. The tracks were between the railway line proper and the roadway out
to the pierhead.


A long ways off, I know, but what's the deal with building an underwater
connection between the Island and mainland?



Cost, more cost, oh, and cost. Furthermore there is a sizeable and
vociferous group of islanders who don't want it. Did I mention the cost?

When the Channel tunnel was finished there was a serious proposal to build a
cross-Solent tunnel utilising one of the redundant TBMs and the then pool of
experienced labour that would have come available. It never happened,
probably due to the cost :-) One version of the proposal envisaged reusing
the Fareham-Gosport line.

--
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
wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 11:02:19 +0100 rail wrote:
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.

Can't see that happening myself. It would cost a fortune not just to build
the new section but to convert the entire line to OHLE and no doubt 'Elf N
Softies would stick their ore in about that. And thats before they have to
find the trams from somewhere. I doubt there are many scrap value 70 year
old trams for cheap sale like their were tube trains :)


Probably cheaper than trying to rebore the tunnel but whether an economic
case could be made is anybody's guess. Mind you by the time they run out of
suitable tube stock there may well be some cheap trams available

--
Graeme Wall

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

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
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.

Have they thought of perhaps running some sort of shuttle service from
Ryde
Pier Head to Ryde Esplanade, allowing passengers to transfer to other
rolling stock? My guess is that this would not really be feasible,
however.

There used to be a tramway shuttle that did exactly that back in the dim
and
distant. The tracks were between the railway line proper and the roadway
out
to the pierhead.

Something like the Hythe Pier Railway? Why don't they do that, if corrosion
is going to be such a concern on newer models?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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


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.

Fair enough. But would it actually be feasible to bring in 67Ts stock or
would too many modifications indeed be required? If that is the case, I
noticed that some of Victoria Line trains' current make ups consist of 72Ts
stock. Would there be enough of them for the Island Line's requirements?


Aren't these the types that have alloy panels on a steel frame?


And what about the 83Ts, which used to run on the Jubilee, as an option?
Those actually might be good for the Island line, because I believe that
they required guards.


Haven't they been scrapped yet?

More Piccys from the IOW
 

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 07 May 2009 11:02:19 +0100
rail wrote:
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.

Can't see that happening myself. It would cost a fortune not just to build
the new section but to convert the entire line to OHLE and no doubt 'Elf N
Softies would stick their ore in about that. And thats before they have to
find the trams from somewhere. I doubt there are many scrap value 70 year
old
trams for cheap sale like their were tube trains :)

B2003

Melbourne's W2 and SW2s would have been a source at one time, but Heritage
listing has prevent further sales.

DW down under

More Piccys from the IOW
 

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


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.

Fair enough. But would it actually be feasible to bring in 67Ts stock or
would too many modifications indeed be required? If that is the case, I
noticed that some of Victoria Line trains' current make ups consist of
72Ts stock. Would there be enough of them for the Island Line's
requirements?

And what about the 83Ts, which used to run on the Jubilee, as an option?
Those actually might be good for the Island line, because I believe that
they required guards.

None left.