| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
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 |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Boltar" wrote in message m... 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 There was some discussion by LUL about extending the District Line to rayners and Uxbridge, leaving the Picc Line to run the Ealing Bdy and heathrow lines. I dont know what became of this idea! But then it is LUL!! |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
In message , Boltar
writes 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? I imagine that the reason may have been that the Piccadilly goes more directly to traditional "hotels zones" - Knightsbridge, Hyde Park Corner (for Park Lane), Green Park (for Piccadilly) and Russell Square. While the District serves Victoria (and also, like the Picc, Earls Court) the cheaper hotels in these areas were seldom used by tourists arriving by air in the days when the Heathrow extension was built - their popularity has largely been a phenomenon of the much cheaper flights of the last decade. -- Paul Terry |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Surely the main reason for not doing this was that the frequency of the
Ealing service on the District was so much less than the Piccadilly to Hounslow. And you could not increase it without decreasing the Wimbledon or Richmond services; not an option given the loadings on both branches, particularly Wimbledon. The Piccadilly had a much more frequent service to Hounslow and only that frequency could cope with loadings to Heathrow. "Boltar" wrote in message m... 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 |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Lawrie" wrote in message ...
Surely the main reason for not doing this was that the frequency of the Ealing service on the District was so much less than the Piccadilly to Hounslow. And you could not increase it without decreasing the Wimbledon or Richmond services; not an option given the loadings on both branches, particularly Wimbledon. The Piccadilly had a much more frequent service to Hounslow and only that frequency could cope with loadings to Heathrow. "Boltar" wrote in message m... 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 The tunnels from Hounslow West to Heathrow were built using the cut-and-cover method that was used on the district/met lines when they were built, unusually. The piccadilly stock has specially built luggage spaces. Also it is much quicker I find to central london. I would guess you could find the feasability study for the extension online or if you phoned up LU. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"CJC" wrote in message
om The tunnels from Hounslow West to Heathrow were built using the cut-and-cover method that was used on the district/met lines when they were built, unusually. There is some cut and cover tunnel, but much of the Heathrow extension is deep-bored, including all of the line under the airport itself. Cut-and-cover would hardly have been an option for a line that was tunneled under an active and very busy runway, a number of taxiways, probably some hangars and (presumably) Terminal 3. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Nigel Pendse" wrote in message ... "CJC" wrote in message om The tunnels from Hounslow West to Heathrow were built using the cut-and-cover method that was used on the district/met lines when they were built, unusually. There is some cut and cover tunnel, but much of the Heathrow extension is deep-bored, including all of the line under the airport itself. Cut-and-cover would hardly have been an option for a line that was tunneled under an active and very busy runway, a number of taxiways, probably some hangars and (presumably) Terminal 3. Just because it was deep-bored doesn't mean it has to be small bore. In this city there are deep level main line rail tunnels (for double deck stock) as well as deep-bored road tollway tunnels (3 lanes each way). Peter Sydney |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Cast_Iron
), in message who said: Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only the height that is different. When deciding which line should serve the airport (or any other location) account has to be taken of where the people will actually want to travel to. There's not a lot of point in having the District serve Heathrow when people want to get to hotels in Russell Square is there? Of course situations change and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I am however quite sure that if it had been decided to build the Heathrow extension to surface stock loading gauge the whingers would have been complaining about the additional expenditure and little use. I think the problem is that all the connections to Heathrow seem to be aimed at getting people into central London, which is fundamentally flawed in two respects. 1) Around half the passengers coming into Heathrow are British people returning from their holidays, not tourists visiting. 2) Central London hotel prices have led to a vast expansion of the tourist catchment area in recent years. It's now not unusual for 'ordinary' people who aren't made of money to visit the capital and stay in zone 2 or 3, because that's where the affordable accomodation is getting built. Can't we have rail links from Heathrow to anywhere else? When I go from Tooting to Heathrow to go on holiday, both the Picc and the Express seem extremely inconvenient and time-consuming prospects (and the Express is pricey to boot), so I get a taxi every time. BTN |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"peter" wrote in message
"Nigel Pendse" wrote in message ... "CJC" wrote in message om The tunnels from Hounslow West to Heathrow were built using the cut-and-cover method that was used on the district/met lines when they were built, unusually. There is some cut and cover tunnel, but much of the Heathrow extension is deep-bored, including all of the line under the airport itself. Cut-and-cover would hardly have been an option for a line that was tunneled under an active and very busy runway, a number of taxiways, probably some hangars and (presumably) Terminal 3. Just because it was deep-bored doesn't mean it has to be small bore. In this city there are deep level main line rail tunnels (for double deck stock) as well as deep-bored road tollway tunnels (3 lanes each way). Agreed, but that wasn't the point I was making. The fact is that the Heathrow LU tunnels are Tube, not sub-surface sized, so the District Line is not an option now. Presumably in the 1970s it was a lot cheaper to build small diameter than large diameter tunnels, which may have been one of the reasons why there were built that way (quite apart from the other advantages of the Piccadilly over the District line). Of course, the Heathrow Express now has larger diameter deep bored tunnels under both acyive runways, taxiways, etc. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Ben Nunn wrote:
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Cast_Iron ), in message who said: Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only the height that is different. When deciding which line should serve the airport (or any other location) account has to be taken of where the people will actually want to travel to. There's not a lot of point in having the District serve Heathrow when people want to get to hotels in Russell Square is there? Of course situations change and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I am however quite sure that if it had been decided to build the Heathrow extension to surface stock loading gauge the whingers would have been complaining about the additional expenditure and little use. I think the problem is that all the connections to Heathrow seem to be aimed at getting people into central London, which is fundamentally flawed in two respects. 1) Around half the passengers coming into Heathrow are British people returning from their holidays, not tourists visiting. 2) Central London hotel prices have led to a vast expansion of the tourist catchment area in recent years. It's now not unusual for 'ordinary' people who aren't made of money to visit the capital and stay in zone 2 or 3, because that's where the affordable accomodation is getting built. Can't we have rail links from Heathrow to anywhere else? When I go from Tooting to Heathrow to go on holiday, both the Picc and the Express seem extremely inconvenient and time-consuming prospects (and the Express is pricey to boot), so I get a taxi every time. We can have anything we like as long as we are prepared to pay for it, and most people aren't. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ...
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. Of course situations change and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I am however You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying capacity. quite sure that if it had been decided to build the Heathrow extension to surface stock loading gauge the whingers would have been complaining about the additional expenditure and little use. Even if the picc continued running the main service to the airport some distruct trains could have used it occasionally to take up the slack, the same way that the picc and met run togather to uxbridge. B2003 |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Boltar wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. Of course situations change and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I am however You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying capacity. quite sure that if it had been decided to build the Heathrow extension to surface stock loading gauge the whingers would have been complaining about the additional expenditure and little use. Even if the picc continued running the main service to the airport some distruct trains could have used it occasionally to take up the slack, the same way that the picc and met run togather to uxbridge. B2003 "They" could have done all sorts of things, if the cash was available. Are you looking at this from a 1960s perspective or a 2000s one? |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
In message , Ben Nunn
writes I think the problem is that all the connections to Heathrow seem to be aimed at getting people into central London, which is fundamentally flawed in two respects. 1) Around half the passengers coming into Heathrow are British people returning from their holidays, not tourists visiting. I don't know where you get that statistic from, but I don't think its correct. Heathrow's lack of charter flights and cheap airline services don't make it a popular choice for British holidaymakers. But it is the major gateway for international visitors. The National Statistics' Office Travel Trends report for 2000 says ... Heathrow accounted for over a half of all visits by overseas residents travelling to the UK by air. UK residents travelling by air were more inclined to use regional airports. On the other hand, Heathrow has the lion's share of business travel by air. 2) Central London hotel prices have led to a vast expansion of the tourist catchment area in recent years. Central London hotels have enormous over-capacity at present. Consequently it is possible to find much better deals there than in many other parts of the UK. It's now not unusual for 'ordinary' people who aren't made of money to visit the capital and stay in zone 2 or 3, because that's where the affordable accomodation is getting built. Affordable hotels, do you mean? I don't see many. And for the many visitors who come for a short city-break, the travelling time from further out eats into holiday time. Can't we have rail links from Heathrow to anywhere else? Some would be desirable, but I don't know how cost-effective they would be. Most of my friends and relatives who fly overseas for holidays go from Luton, Stansted, Gatwick or Manchester - they wouldn't dream of using Heathrow. When I go from Tooting to Heathrow to go on holiday, both the Picc and the Express seem extremely inconvenient and time-consuming prospects (and the Express is pricey to boot), so I get a taxi every time. That's fine, since you can clearly afford a taxi. When flying on holiday (as opposed to business, where I get my fare paid) I find that the savings to be made by flying from Stansted more than make-up for the extra hour it takes me to cross town to get there. -- Paul Terry |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ...
Boltar wrote: Even if the picc continued running the main service to the airport some distruct trains could have used it occasionally to take up the slack, the same way that the picc and met run togather to uxbridge. B2003 "They" could have done all sorts of things, if the cash was available. Are you looking at this from a 1960s perspective or a 2000s one? Why would it have cost more to run larger trains? The difference in tunnelling costs would have been negligable just to make the tunnels a foot or 2 wider. B2003 |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Boltar wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... Boltar wrote: Even if the picc continued running the main service to the airport some distruct trains could have used it occasionally to take up the slack, the same way that the picc and met run togather to uxbridge. B2003 "They" could have done all sorts of things, if the cash was available. Are you looking at this from a 1960s perspective or a 2000s one? Why would it have cost more to run larger trains? The difference in tunnelling costs would have been negligable just to make the tunnels a foot or 2 wider. B2003 Width isn't the main issue, it's height. In case you hadn't noticed Met and District trains are taller than those on the Piccadilly and other deep level tube lines. A Piccadilly Line train is only 211mm narrower than those on the District. They are however 711mm shorter. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
|
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
... The cost of the tunnel is going to be quite closely correleated to its size. The bigger the tunnel, the more spoil to remove and the tighter the engineering. In particular, if you make the radius 40% larger you have twice the spoil to remove. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
In article , Boltar
writes Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock have 2+2 seating. A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines. You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying capacity. No, since it's not necessarily true. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:50:21 +0000, Huge wrote:
Because sensible public transport systems are hub-and-spoke. The best transit system would be a direct link in a straight line from every possible source to every possible destination. This is obviously not possible, however travelling all the way into a central hub is stupid in most cases. That's why cars + roads are better, they are based on a web, rather then a star, network. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar writes Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock have 2+2 seating. A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines. You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying capacity. No, since it's not necessarily true. The tube stock size thing can be put either way. My view is that larger trains going under London would have been better than tubes, but obviously this isn't how it has worked out. There must be some decent justification for the tube size though, it has prevailed in new line building until now. I can't see how the victoria and jubilee lines were made tube size, a mainline tunnel going under at Kings Cross and coming out at Victoria would have made much more sense as would one from the LNWR line to Waterloo than the current lines. With Heathrow, my view is that the 6tph the District has free from losing Richmond should replace the Uxbridge branch, and the Piccadilly should be four-tracked to Heathrow, which would be quite costly, but the inner lines should run fast in to Hammersmith, stopping at Acton only, and the outer lines have a normal service. This would make the airport link a lot better, the "express" stock could be changed in the interior for more baggage space than now. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
In message , CJC
writes "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Boltar writes Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock have 2+2 seating. A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines. You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying capacity. No, since it's not necessarily true. The tube stock size thing can be put either way. My view is that larger trains going under London would have been better than tubes, but obviously this isn't how it has worked out. There must be some decent justification for the tube size though, it has prevailed in new line building until now. I can't see how the victoria and jubilee lines were made tube size, a mainline tunnel going under at Kings Cross and coming out at Victoria would have made much more sense as would one from the LNWR line to Waterloo than the current lines. I think it was more the case that the tunnelling equipment available when most of these lines were built (over 100 years ago) dictated that the diameter of the tunnels should be as small as possible. There were no Channel Tunnel style Boring Machines back then of course, most of it was done by hand. -- Spyke Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post. |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar writes Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock have 2+2 seating. Thats true , but in the D stock the seats are a lot wider. A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines. 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. You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying capacity. No, since it's not necessarily true. It is if you're talking about width , height make little difference but the wider a carriage the more people you can fit in. B2003 |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
Boltar wrote:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Boltar writes Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra room inside the carriages. They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock have 2+2 seating. Thats true , but in the D stock the seats are a lot wider. A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines. 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...&output=gplain Sunil -- |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
In article , Dr. Sunil wrote:
Boltar 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! I thought it was the width and height we were discussing, not the length! ;) Niklas -- "The noble haggis is just a bit more honest about the ingredients - an Open Source mystery meat pie, as it were." -- Peter Corlett |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"CJC" wrote in message om... With Heathrow, my view is that the 6tph the District has free from losing Richmond should replace the Uxbridge branch, and the Piccadilly should be four-tracked to Heathrow, which would be quite costly, but the inner lines should run fast in to Hammersmith, stopping at Acton only, and the outer lines have a normal service. This would make the airport link a lot better, the "express" stock could be changed in the interior for more baggage space than now. And just where on the ground would you have put the extra 2 tracks? |
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message ...
A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines. 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...&output=gplain Thanks. In other words A stock is only 1 inch wider than C stock. Trivial really. It does make me wonder why such a small amount restricts where the A stock can run , I guess it must be wider at an inconvenient height or something. B2003 |
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. 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. |
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 05:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk