|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Johnny Mo" wrote in message om... (Boltar) wrote in message om... Something I was wondering the other day , when the extension to Heathrow airport was built why didn't they re-extend the district line to Hounslow and beyond and divert the piccadilly to ealing? Why? Because district trains are much bigger and so they would have been much more room for passengers and their luggage rather than the pokey little tube trains on the picc. Was there a good reason for not doing this given the benefits it would have entailed for passengers with luggage? B2003 No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does not. Johnny Mo I think the op meant when the track and tunnels were made, why not make them bigger and send the bigger surface stock to the airport. IIRC 313's have doors on the front of the cab. All underground stocks have steps or ramps to help detrain onto track level. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Nigel Pendse wrote:
"Johnny Mo" wrote in message om No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does not. Inter-car movement on the D stock seems no harder than on Tube stock, so is that just a question of carrying a (longer) ramp in the cab? Presumably the fire resistance is much the same in all UG stock. The District's D stock is the only one that still has wooden floors. Hence they still carry fire extinguishers in the passenger areas, whereas some more modern (or refurbished) types don't. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Richard J." wrote in message
Nigel Pendse wrote: "Johnny Mo" wrote in message om No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does not. Inter-car movement on the D stock seems no harder than on Tube stock, so is that just a question of carrying a (longer) ramp in the cab? Presumably the fire resistance is much the same in all UG stock. The District's D stock is the only one that still has wooden floors. Hence they still carry fire extinguishers in the passenger areas, whereas some more modern (or refurbished) types don't. That's true now, but when this decision was made in the 1970s, all LU stock had wooden slatted floors. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Rob" wrote in message ...
"Johnny Mo" wrote in message om... (Boltar) wrote in message om... Something I was wondering the other day , when the extension to Heathrow airport was built why didn't they re-extend the district line to Hounslow and beyond and divert the piccadilly to ealing? Why? Because district trains are much bigger and so they would have been much more room for passengers and their luggage rather than the pokey little tube trains on the picc. Was there a good reason for not doing this given the benefits it would have entailed for passengers with luggage? B2003 No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does not. Johnny Mo I think the op meant when the track and tunnels were made, why not make them bigger and send the bigger surface stock to the airport. IIRC 313's have doors on the front of the cab. All underground stocks have steps or ramps to help detrain onto track level. In response to putting two more tracks in, and like I said it would cost money, between northfields and osterly it would involve a widening of the viaduct and a bridge and there's space otherwise. After that removing the cutting and having just concrete walls would make space, then obviously some property purchasing as well. I said that would be my preference, not that it would be possible. I overlooked the HSE stuff as well. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
In article ,
(Dr. Sunil) wrote: If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site with this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is only about 9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side , not a whole hell of a lot really. sorry for the length! http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...9224642.31224A -100000%40biochem.bc.ic.ac.uk&output=gplain Why don't people look these things up in the standard sources? Hardy (2002 edition) has this table (I've left out the lengths): (mm) Stock Width Height 1967 2642 2877 1972 2642 2877 1973 2630 2880 1992 2620 2869 1995 2630 2875 1996 2630 2875 A60/62 2946 3689 C69/77 2920 3687 D 2850 3620 Glover's Ian Allan London Underground (1997) has similar dimensions and those for the 1983 stock. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Dr. Sunil) wrote: If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site with this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is only about 9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side , not a whole hell of a lot really. sorry for the length! http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...9224642.31224A -100000%40biochem.bc.ic.ac.uk&output=gplain Why don't people look these things up in the standard sources? Just possibly, because they don't own them. Anyway, why do you regard "Hardy" and "Glover's Ian Allan London Underground" as standard sources, but not 'Motive Power Recognition: 4, London Transport Railways and PTE Systems' by John Glover and Colin J. Marsden (as quoted by Sunil)? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk