"Mizter T" wrote in message

On 18 Aug, 16:31, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 11, 4:28pm, wrote:
I dunno , I reckon the height would be pretty close if you measure
from rail level. And I suspect the width is pretty much the same.

No way - or rather, I have to disagree with you on that one - I know
bendies well, and there's *much* more space in the articulated bit
of a bendy than there is in a tube carriage.

Hmm , well given the max width of a road vehicle is 2.5 metres and
tube trains are 2.6 metres wide ...

There may be more room on the inside of a bus because its not built
so strong but external dimensions are another matter.

OK, the width of the articulated bit of a bendy bus is less than the
width of a tube carriage - but we're talking more about the potential
dimensions of the articulated bit of some hypothetical future tube
train design. I'm not objecting to the basic concept, merely agreeing
with others that it might be a bit of a tight fit - specifically I'm
thinking about people bashing their heads on the low ceiling of an
articulated connection. Unless you're very tall, that's simply not an
issue w.r.t. the articulated section of a bendy bus.

There was of course the "space train" concept for new Victoria line
stock a while back that had walk-through carriage connections. It
looked exciting, but evidently it wasn't pursued.

I seem to recall that the space train was articulated and had a low
floor (thanks to small wheels), which makes open gangways less of a
challenge in a tube train.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 12, 7:40*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:15:51 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:

True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished
stock would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge
train and setting up a production line from scratch, though.

I think that all rather depends on assumptions about what sort of tube
train design LUL might desire for the Bakerloo Line fleet .....

A train designed for an extended Bakerloo line would be nice...

Wasn't the 1949 tube stock designed for that?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote:

If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly line
tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much difference between
09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way or the
other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to equipment?

Did it arrive that way? *I thought it was delivered by road rather than
rail and then across the tube network. *I'd genuinely like to know the
answer to this so if anyone can point me at the facts it'd be good.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:09:34PM +0000, Richard J. wrote:
David Cantrell wrote on 18 August 2009 11:41:23 ...
Not all of them have fences or walls. Plenty of people there can walk from their front door to the middle of the road without climbing over a wall or fence, and without going through a gateway.
In that case, the road is fenced by your front door and the front wall
of your house.

Oh, well in that case, all roads are fenced throughout the entire world
because to get from anywhere outside my house to inside my house, I have
to pass through my doorway.

That is, of course, a stupid argument.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

Seven o'clock in the morning is something that
happens to those less fortunate than me

On Aug 19, 7:19*am, asdf wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote:

If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly line
tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much difference between
09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way or the
other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to equipment?

Did it arrive that way? *I thought it was delivered by road rather than
rail and then across the tube network. *I'd genuinely like to know the
answer to this so if anyone can point me at the facts it'd be good.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

Have these connections been used for anything other than engineering
trains for the past several years though?

On 19 Aug, 07:19, asdf wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote:
If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly line
tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much difference between
09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way or the
other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to equipment?

Did it arrive that way? *I thought it was delivered by road rather than
rail and then across the tube network. *I'd genuinely like to know the
answer to this so if anyone can point me at the facts it'd be good.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

Is it that they actually don't fit, or just that it would be so
expensive and time-consuming to confirm whether they do that it isn't
worth it?

On Aug 19, 11:17*pm, MIG wrote:
Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

They won't ever go to Acton Works, by road or otherwise. All
maintenance will be at Northumberland Park; anything that can't be
done at Northumberland Park will be done at Derby.

Engineering trains will continue to use the Picc-Vic connections at
Finsbury Park.

Is it that they actually don't fit, or just that it would be so
expensive and time-consuming to confirm whether they do that it isn't
worth it?

AIUI "they" (presumably Metronet) ran a 1967 Stock with bits of foam
stuck to it through the Picc to see if it did. Either it didn't, or
the decision was made to deliver by road anyway.

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the trains
than via half the Underground network...?)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML?

Lea Valley Lines, actually.... the GEML runs through Ilford.

Northumberland Park depot was a former rail depot, so junctions on the Lea
Valley Lines must have been actually removed when the Tube depot was
created.

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On Aug 19, 11:17*pm, MIG wrote:
Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park
redundant (except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a
specific reference off the top of my head though, so I could be
wrong.

They won't ever go to Acton Works, by road or otherwise. All
maintenance will be at Northumberland Park; anything that can't be
done at Northumberland Park will be done at Derby.

Engineering trains will continue to use the Picc-Vic connections at
Finsbury Park.

Is it that they actually don't fit, or just that it would be so
expensive and time-consuming to confirm whether they do that it isn't
worth it?

AIUI "they" (presumably Metronet) ran a 1967 Stock with bits of foam
stuck to it through the Picc to see if it did. Either it didn't, or
the decision was made to deliver by road anyway.

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the trains
than via half the Underground network...?)

Northumberland Park depot was in 1967 connected to the Lea Valley line
that runs alongside it (not the GEML many miles away).

Somebody decided it would be a good idea to remove the connection after
the 1967TS stock had been delivered.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, wrote:

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the trains
than via half the Underground network...?)

Northumberland Park depot was in 1967 connected to the Lea Valley line
that runs alongside it (not the GEML many miles away).

Somebody decided it would be a good idea to remove the connection after
the 1967TS stock had been delivered.

Yes, to stop it escaping. Very sensible.

tom

--
There are many ways of going crazy, but the most valuable of them is
this one which makes a genius out of an ordinary man. -- Claudio Grondi