Modern Railways, June
 

Yesterday when I stopped by my PMB, June Modern Railways had finally
arrived. Among the items of particular interest to me, where the
article on Crossrail, and a beautiful picture of a 1930 stock tube
train on tour.

It seems that Crossrail opening is determined to be 2017. We can only
hope. I was living in London at the time of the, then, Fleet Line
(Jubilee Line phase one) construction. It
was a fairly short stretch from Baker Street to Charring Cross. But
construction seemed to last forever.

The artist's renderings of the stations looked very good. Tottenham
Court Road is very cramped these days. The new version appears to be
considerably larger.

Sadly taxpayer pounds are being spent on reversing sidings at
Maidenhead. One hopes Crossrail will run to Reading before many years
have passed.

The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.

Later this week I will take a look at "Informed Sources".
..

Modern Railways, June
 

1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway. However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 9, 10:56*am, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:
1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. *Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. *The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway.

That sounds about right.

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Indeed, I could not agree more. They were wonderful trains. They
almost define my years in London. Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

Modern Railways, June
 

On 9 June, 19:53, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:56*am, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:

1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. *Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. *The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway.

That sounds about right.

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of ''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s - they do
look very similar externally and internally. I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. 38s and
62s they had no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

--
Nick

Modern Railways, June
 

On 9 June, 21:15, wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of *''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually *much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s *- they do
look very similar externally and internally. *I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. * 38s and
62s they had *no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

I think people would mainly remember the colour. No 1959 or 1962
stock appeared in red till long after the 1938 stock was withdrawn.
Also, I don't think the 1938 stock could have been as bouncy ...

I used to know all the visual (not technical) differences between 1959
and 1962 (and C69 and C77) but the differences tended to be
obliterated with subsequent refurbishment and so on.

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 9, 1:15*pm, wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of *''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually *much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s *- they do
look very similar externally and internally. *I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. * 38s and
62s they had *no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

My "London Period" was 1967 thru 1975. The only Red painted stock at
that time was the Standards and the 1938. 1938 Stock had much cleaner
lines. OTOH, the oval windows on some Standard Stock cars were very
easy on the eye.

My experience was only as a passenger/enthusiast. I never knew that
the 1938 stock was a maintenance headache. Who would have known?
They seemed so solid.

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 9, 9:41*pm, 1506 wrote:

They seemed so solid.


A MetroVick CoBo is also quite solid.


--
Nick

Modern Railways, June
 

On 9 June, 21:41, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:15*pm, wrote:



On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of *''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually *much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s *- they do
look very similar externally and internally. *I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. * 38s and
62s they had *no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

My "London Period" was 1967 thru 1975. *The only Red painted stock at
that time was the Standards and the 1938. *1938 Stock had much cleaner
lines. *OTOH, the oval windows on some Standard Stock cars were very
easy on the eye.

My experience was only as a passenger/enthusiast. *I never knew that
the 1938 stock was a maintenance headache. *Who would have known?
They seemed so solid.

Don't forget the CO/CP stock on the District, which was rather red.

Modern Railways, June
 

Modern Railways, June
 

"Stephen O'Connell" wrote in message
...
1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs certainly
weren't red in my day anyway. However, that's only a minor nitpick. They
are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red livery. It brings back
soooo many memories..

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!

Modern Railways, June
 

"Grumbling Appendix" wrote

The 1938 tube train

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Peter
(old enough to have travelled to school on RFs and RTs)

Modern Railways, June
 

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:15:58 +0100, "Tim Fenton"
wrote:


"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).

This was actually a pre-war design - you could recognise the pre-war
from the post-war because the former had route-number boxes front and
back but the latter only had them at the front or not at all. We used
to see them occasionally on the local routes when I was a kid.

Both the RT family (including RTL and RTW) and the RM family were long
lived, rugged and reliable vehicles many of which had an extended life
on provincial cities after withdrawal by London Transport. RMs were
the mainstay of of many of the independents athat sprung up after
deregulation.

Modern Railways, June
 

"Tim Fenton" wrote

There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second
being with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road,
but needed a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.

You do make me feel old. The RMs were billed as the replacement for
trolleybuses, and I was disappointed when the Bexleyheath trolleys were
replaced by RTs (on the 96, and by extending the 229 through to Woolwich by
the 698 route). My earliest RM journeys were on Red Rovers, starting 161
Chislehurst to Woolwich (RT), Woolwich Ferry, and an RM (route 69?) from
North Woolwich to Chingford.

Peter

Modern Railways, June
 

On 10 June, 16:11, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote

There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second
being with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road,
but needed a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.

You do make me feel old. The RMs were billed as the replacement for
trolleybuses, and I was disappointed when the Bexleyheath trolleys were
replaced by RTs (on the 96, and by extending the 229 through to Woolwich by
the 698 route). My earliest RM journeys were on Red Rovers, starting 161
Chislehurst to Woolwich (RT), Woolwich Ferry, and an RM (route 69?) from
North Woolwich to Chingford.

Peter

I think it could well be the 69.

I remember that we referred to the RMs on the 123 as "new buses".
Although, that was only relative to RTs on other routes like the 144
as it was then. I don't suppose they were that new really.

Modern Railways, June
 

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 10 June, 16:11, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote

There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second
being with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road,
but needed a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.

You do make me feel old. The RMs were billed as the replacement for
trolleybuses, and I was disappointed when the Bexleyheath trolleys were
replaced by RTs (on the 96, and by extending the 229 through to Woolwich
by
the 698 route). My earliest RM journeys were on Red Rovers, starting 161
Chislehurst to Woolwich (RT), Woolwich Ferry, and an RM (route 69?) from
North Woolwich to Chingford.

Peter

I think it could well be the 69.

I remember that we referred to the RMs on the 123 as "new buses".
Although, that was only relative to RTs on other routes like the 144
as it was then. I don't suppose they were that new really.

I'm now feeling really old. In November 1952 the 227 was shared between old
Scooters and new RFs. If both were lined up at Chislehurst Gordon Arms I'd
insist on going on the RF, even if the Scooter was due out first.

Peter

Modern Railways, June
 

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 10 June, 16:11, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote

There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second
being with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow
Road,
but needed a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.

You do make me feel old. The RMs were billed as the replacement for
trolleybuses, and I was disappointed when the Bexleyheath trolleys were
replaced by RTs (on the 96, and by extending the 229 through to Woolwich
by
the 698 route). My earliest RM journeys were on Red Rovers, starting 161
Chislehurst to Woolwich (RT), Woolwich Ferry, and an RM (route 69?) from
North Woolwich to Chingford.

Peter

I think it could well be the 69.

I remember that we referred to the RMs on the 123 as "new buses".
Although, that was only relative to RTs on other routes like the 144
as it was then. I don't suppose they were that new really.

I'm now feeling really old. In November 1952 the 227 was shared between
old Scooters and new RFs. If both were lined up at Chislehurst Gordon Arms
I'd insist on going on the RF, even if the Scooter was due out first.

Peter
The RF was a pleasure to drive, I drove them on the 712-713-714 out of
Dorking and before that I had a go with the re-geared one at Reigate on the
727, that could really motor.

Modern Railways, June
 

On 10 June, 17:19, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...





On 10 June, 16:11, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote

There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second
being with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road,
but needed a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.

You do make me feel old. The RMs were billed as the replacement for
trolleybuses, and I was disappointed when the Bexleyheath trolleys were
replaced by RTs (on the 96, and by extending the 229 through to Woolwich
by
the 698 route). My earliest RM journeys were on Red Rovers, starting 161
Chislehurst to Woolwich (RT), Woolwich Ferry, and an RM (route 69?) from
North Woolwich to Chingford.

Peter

I think it could well be the 69.

I remember that we referred to the RMs on the 123 as "new buses".
Although, that was only relative to RTs on other routes like the 144
as it was then. *I don't suppose they were that new really.

I'm now feeling really old. In November 1952 the 227 was shared between old
Scooters and new RFs. If both were lined up at Chislehurst Gordon Arms I'd
insist on going on the RF, even if the Scooter was due out first.

Peter-

Now I'm feeling young ...

There was a local route with RFs that I did used to go on, which was
the 254. I remember the climb to get in: it was like a single decker
that only had a top deck and no bottom deck. I don't remember ever
going on them anywhere else, but I think they persisted at Kingston
for quite a long time.

I always liked the look of them though. And the noise.

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 10, 4:38*am, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:

hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,

Unreliable? Yet some of them are still operating on the Isle of Weight
some 60 years after they were built! If that's unreliable, I hope I
still am at that age!!! *:-)


:o) I take the joke ... but have to point out longevity is not the
same as reliability.

There may be a tenuous relationship in that something that has low
reliability may have a shorter than planned service life if a point is
reached where capital replacement is lower than maintenance (incl.
overhauls).

IOW is an artificial regime ... large fleet compared to traffic
requirements, unintensive service, very small dedicated operators as
well as engineers.

--
Nick

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 10, 3:35*pm, "Tim Fenton" wrote:

Actually, many of the RTL and RTW (6RT and 7RT) got withdrawn at the end of
the 1960s and were cut up, which was a bit of a waste, but then there had
been over 4,000 built, and it wouldn't have been possible to find new owners


Especially as double decker OMO became legal in 1968 (or thereabouts)
so no sane domestic operator would want a fleet of them, and R/H drive
second hand buses don't have huge export potential. Cue a long list of
where exLT buses and trollies have gone ... but the sum total is not
huge and extended over a long period.

--
Nick

Modern Railways, June
 

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:35:18 +0100, "Tim Fenton"
wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
.. .

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).

This was actually a pre-war design - you could recognise the pre-war
from the post-war because the former had route-number boxes front and
back but the latter only had them at the front or not at all. We used
to see them occasionally on the local routes when I was a kid.

The pre-war vehicles were the 1RT and 2RT and ITYF they could be easily
distinguished by having a route number box above the top deck front windows.
The post war AEC chassis were 3RT, bodied by a variety of builders, but to
the same style.

Some of the post war RTs also had the route number box above the top
deck front windows. But the pre-war ones also had a similar box above
the top deck rear windows which none o fthe post war ones had.

Both the RT family (including RTL and RTW) and the RM family were long
lived, rugged and reliable vehicles many of which had an extended life
on provincial cities after withdrawal by London Transport.

Actually, many of the RTL and RTW (6RT and 7RT) got withdrawn at the end of
the 1960s and were cut up, which was a bit of a waste, but then there had
been over 4,000 built, and it wouldn't have been possible to find new owners
for all those. Leyland, as well as providing the chassis for these, also
built at least some of the bodies.

RMs were
the mainstay of of many of the independents athat sprung up after
deregulation.

There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second being
with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road, but needed
a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.

I rode them in both Manchester and Glasgow, and saw them in other
cities.

Modern Railways, June
 

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

My "London Period" was 1967 thru 1975. The only Red painted stock at
that time was the Standards and the 1938. 1938 Stock had much cleaner
lines. OTOH, the oval windows on some Standard Stock cars were very
easy on the eye.

No Standard stock cars had oval windows. Just one 1938 TS DM had them, an
experimental modification not repeated on other cars. The extension of the
door windows into the curve of the upper part of the doors on the same
experimental car (10306? - I've not at home to look it up) was repeated in
the 1967 and later TS, though.

My experience was only as a passenger/enthusiast. I never knew that
the 1938 stock was a maintenance headache. Who would have known?
They seemed so solid.

The compressors were never reliable. They were eventually replaced, I
think in the 1980s.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Modern Railways, June
 

In article ,
(Stephen O'Connell) wrote:

Unreliable? Yet some of them are still operating on the Isle of Weight

s/Weight/Wight/

some 60 years after they were built! If that's unreliable, I hope I
still am at that age!!! :-)

Over 70 years!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Modern Railways, June
 

In article ,
(Stephen O'Connell) wrote:

1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway. However, that's only a
minor nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a
red livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

As I remember the 1938TS in my schooldays, the roofs were brown when
freshly painted. They were black only after years of grime.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Modern Railways, June
 

Modern Railways, June
 

In article ,
(Stephen O'Connell) wrote:

some 60 years after they were built! If that's unreliable, I hope I
still am at that age!!! :-)

Over 70 years!

Maths was never my strong point at school either! (Too much maths
debating, not enough maths studying!) :-)

That's not Maths. That's Arithmetic!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Modern Railways, June
 

MIG wrote:
On 9 June, 19:53, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:56 am, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:

1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.
IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway.
That sounds about right.

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. They were wonderful trains. They
almost define my years in London. Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.

They even looked "modern" when they moved to the Isle of Wight - whereas
their predecessors, the standard stock, always looked old-fashioned
because of the clerestories.

Peter Beale

Modern Railways, June
 

In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).


I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.

--
Graeme Wall

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

Modern Railways, June
 

In article ,
says...
In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).


I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.


Don't think so, sir. Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

Modern Railways, June
 

In message
Jim Brittin [wake up to reply] wrote:

In article ,
says...
In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and
62 stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some
of these had OLD nnn numberplates).


I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was
favourite with us as the route was the 362.


Don't think so, sir. Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.

How about 1959? I distinctly remember those two numbers. They operated out
of High Wycombe. The 362 route went via Hazlemere to Amersham.


The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

I defer to your venerability :-)

--
Graeme Wall

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

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 11, 2:59*pm, Jim Brittin [wake
up to reply] wrote:
In article ,
says...



In message
* * * * * "Tim Fenton" wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).

I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.

Don't think so, sir. *Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
vain.

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 11, 8:33*am, Peter Beale wrote:

their predecessors, the standard stock, always looked old-fashioned
because of the clerestories.


But today does clerestory roof tube stock look old ?

Modern tube stock with the externally hung doors - 1992/1995/1995
stock - have a very similar external appearance albeit for very
different reasons, although unlike standard stock it is not apparent
from the head on view.

I do think the 1995/1996 front ends seem to me sort of vaguely in a
way reminiscent of standards, and 1992 stock with the first CLR m.u.
sets. Perhaps its because there is little variation you can put into
tube stock front ends without doing something radical like centre
driving position [they already tried that] or assymetry.

--
Nick

Modern Railways, June
 

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

On Jun 11, 2:59*pm, Jim Brittin [wake
up to reply] wrote:
In article ,
says...

In message
* * * * * "Tim Fenton" wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59
and 62 stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically,
some of these had OLD nnn numberplates).

I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was
favourite with us as the route was the 362.

Don't think so, sir. *Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no
300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and
800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
vain.

It's a good story, especially as the registration "OLD001" never existed!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 12, 1:01*pm, wrote:
In article
,





(1506) wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:59*pm, Jim Brittin [wake
up to reply] wrote:
In article ,
says...

In message
* * * * * "Tim Fenton" wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59
and 62 stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically,
some of these had OLD nnn numberplates).

I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was
favourite with us as the route was the 362.

Don't think so, sir. *Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no
300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and
800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. *I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. *My efforts had been in
vain.

It's a good story, especially as the registration "OLD001" never existed!

OLD 1? 36 years is a long time to remember.

Modern Railways, June
 

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

On Jun 12, 1:01*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:59*pm, Jim Brittin wake
up to reply] wrote:
In article ,
says...

In message
* * * * * "Tim Fenton" wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube
world! I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the
contemporaries of the 59 and 62 stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954
(paradoxically, some of these had OLD nnn numberplates).

I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter
was favourite with us as the route was the 362.

Don't think so, sir. *Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no
300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and
800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. *I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. *My efforts had been in
vain.

It's a good story, especially as the registration "OLD001" never
existed!

OLD 1? 36 years is a long time to remember.

36 years ago is only 1973. That was after most of the RT family had been
scrapped. Looking at my "ABC British Bus Fleets 12", London Transport,
Twenty-First edition, of June 1963, I can't find any OLD mark below
OLD501. The RT fleet was still substantially complete then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Modern Railways, June
 

1506 wrote:

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
vain.

Four days in London, photographing items of transport related interest,
and that amounted to only *one* film?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633074.html
(50 026 at London Waterloo, 1985)

Modern Railways, June
 

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:08:32 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Jun 11, 2:59*pm, Jim Brittin [wake
up to reply] wrote:
In article ,
says...



In message
* * * * * "Tim Fenton" wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).

I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.

Don't think so, sir. *Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001"

If that was on the registration plate then it was not a valid number.

under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
vain.

Modern Railways, June
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

1506 wrote:

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.

When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
vain.

Four days in London, photographing items of transport related interest,
and that amounted to only *one* film?


Film was expensive in 1973!

--
Graeme Wall

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

Modern Railways, June
 

On Jun 12, 7:53*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:08:32 -0700 (PDT), 1506





wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:59*pm, Jim Brittin [wake
up to reply] wrote:
In article ,
says...

In message
* * * * * "Tim Fenton" wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).

I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.

Don't think so, sir. *Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.

The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.

Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!

One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001"

If that was on the registration plate then it was not a valid number.


OLD 1? 36 years is a long time to remember.

Modern Railways, June
 

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:43:23 +0100, rail
wrote:

In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.

Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).


I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.

In those days the same bus seemed to do the same duty every day. I went
to school on RT640 (JXC 448) which was always given the running number
DG36.

--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com