|
S Stock
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:20:03 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: On 8 July, 23:29, " wrote: On 08/07/2010 13:24, Bruce wrote: On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:46:34 +0100, "Recliner" *wrote: "Matt *wrote in message I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW. Presumably because at the time, the (at the time, recently refurbished) stock was still fit for purpose, and replacing it with the ex-Jubilee stock would have been a false economy. *Perhaps if there were six or seven units of 83 stock available now, then it might be worthwhile, but with 69 stock becoming available soon, I think there's a strong possibility that some of them will head to Grockle- Central, rather than straight to CF Booth's tin-can factory. I presume you mean 1967 stock. *I assume that driving it in purely manual mode in short formation won't be a problem? The stock earmarked for the Island Line is either 1972 or 1973 stock. The 1972 stock is almost identical to 1967 stock but has manual diving controls. 67 stock also has manual controls. But it seems that they are set up similar to the Berlin U-Bahn in that the controller and the deadman feature are separate, whereas they are integrated into one on all other underground stock here. In A stock isn't there still a separation between handle/controller and brake, integrated from C69 stock onwards? Not the same separation you mean, I guess, but I'd have thought more likely to be how 1967 stock is, given that that's how it was on LU. http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/s...bsurfaceStock/ has a photo of an A stock driver's desk if anyone cares to analyse it. |
S Stock
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:59:42 +0100, Bruce
wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:41:14 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 03:55:49 -0700 (PDT), RPM wrote: On Jul 7, 5:16*pm, 1506 wrote: On Jul 7, 3:19*am, "Paul Scott" wrote: wrote in message news:EPOYn.108845$m87.80874@hurricane... What about for the Island Line? Any going that way? No - 'Island line' is to get 73 stock, according to SWT a few months ago. Given that the IoW now routinely seems to utilize ex-TfL stock one has to wonder why they do not go ahead and install a fourth rail. *It would save converting the trains after each purchase. It will be sad to see the all over red stock retire. I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW. Somewhere in the back issues of "Underground" (the LURS journal) ISTR there are various reasons given for 1983 stock not being used one of which can be summed up as 1983 stock not being suitable for use anywhere within sniffing distance of the seaside unless a serious amount of anti-corrosion modifications were made both below floor and above. I remember reading about that too. Presumably, whatever prevented the 1983 Stock being used on the Island does not apply to the 1967, 1972 and 1973 Stock. I assume that, in the 1983 Stock, dissimilar metals are involved - likely to be steel and aluminium alloy, giving a risk of severe electrolytic corrosion in the presence of salt spray, a risk that wouldn't present such a serious problem on the Underground. I later tripped over another couple of articles which suggest that 1983 stock was quite capable of suffering from corrosion in important places with rain water never mind sea water. I think 1960/1962 stock had earlier been ruled on on vaguely similar grounds more involved with the underfloor equipment than the body. Perhaps a future bodge (if the offending bridge/tunnel is not dealt with) could involve putting sensitive electrical equipment back inside the body ? |
S Stock
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:58:00 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:59:42 +0100, Bruce wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:41:14 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote: Somewhere in the back issues of "Underground" (the LURS journal) ISTR there are various reasons given for 1983 stock not being used one of which can be summed up as 1983 stock not being suitable for use anywhere within sniffing distance of the seaside unless a serious amount of anti-corrosion modifications were made both below floor and above. I remember reading about that too. Presumably, whatever prevented the 1983 Stock being used on the Island does not apply to the 1967, 1972 and 1973 Stock. I assume that, in the 1983 Stock, dissimilar metals are involved - likely to be steel and aluminium alloy, giving a risk of severe electrolytic corrosion in the presence of salt spray, a risk that wouldn't present such a serious problem on the Underground. I later tripped over another couple of articles which suggest that 1983 stock was quite capable of suffering from corrosion in important places with rain water never mind sea water. I think 1960/1962 stock had earlier been ruled on on vaguely similar grounds more involved with the underfloor equipment than the body. Perhaps a future bodge (if the offending bridge/tunnel is not dealt with) could involve putting sensitive electrical equipment back inside the body ? That could help, but the corrosion problem is more likely to be a result of salt spray while the trains are exposed on Ryde Pier. The Ryde tunnel problem was about a failure to deal with rainwater. |
S Stock
On 7 July, 19:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0100, "Richard J." wrote: 1506 wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ... How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time, technically advanced. *From what I read here the replacement stock lacks its level of comfort. I don't really like the new stock - I suppose I should like it but they are a real disappointment [1]. The seats are too narrow, the seat "cushions" have no cushioning and they are far too hard. *The tip up seats are little better - having had to endure one the other evening. I pointed all this out at the mock up visit at Euston but clearly no one took any notice. There are also silly things like the windows are far too small and don't stretch the entire length of the seating bay - this is a really retrograde step in my view. Given the number of cross platform interchanges on the Vic Line it can be important to be able to see the opposite platform but the end seats in every bay have a wretched panel opposite them rather than a window. *I also noticed the other morning that the doors really move back and forth in their runners when the train moves at speed. *Given the trains are not running at full power I wonder if the doors will be sucked out of their runners when the full capability of the stock and control system is exploited. On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock. * Not in my experience - one had to crawl along a few millimetres at Seven Sisters the other morning. *I'm sure I've had other trains "micro adjust" their stopping point. And having all longitudinal seating means more space for standing passengers, so that's a comfort benefit too. *I can't comment on seat comfort as they're always full up when I travel, which I suppose means they can't be that bad. :-) All the longitudinal seating means is that there are fewer seats which is no good really. The enormous disabled bays in the centre of the train further impinge on standing capacity because there are no head height hand rails to hold on to - same problem over the tip up seat area. *I am sure there are logical explanations as to why the design is as it is. To my "non train designer" eyes it is a mistake to reduce the number of places people can hold on to when the train is designed to carry far more standees. The fact the trains can clearly go extremely quickly will mean it will be more a challenge to hold on in the future when they start to use their superior acceleration and braking capability. The fact the seats are taken does not mean that people enjoy sitting on them! *I have noticed a few (of the regular) people in the morning deliberately not getting a 09 stock and waiting instead for a 67 stock - presumably because they find them more comfortable. [1] sorry LUL / TfL press office if you're reading this. I have tried to like the 09 stock but I really prefer the old trains. -- Paul C I went in 2009 stock for the first time today. Not sure they are a backward step as such, because was anything like them in the past? Just a bad step. The external display was showing "Warren Street" as it pulled into Euston. Given the lack of windows, not helpful if it was showing the same inside. I've never experienced anything like those seats in a train. (A particularly painful conference once though.) Not just hard, but at an angle that forces one to lean forward. Or if one slumps one's bum forward and leans back, only the top ridge of the seat is painfully in contact with one's back. The most striking thing of all was how tiny it seemed inside. Narrower and lower-ceilinged than even the 1992 stock. What was all that about them being "spacious"? Not much use basing that on them being a couple of inches wider externally when the walls are six inches thick. Why the hell are the walls six inches thick? And the odd thing ... why does the voice say "The next station is Vitcoria"? (But at least it didn't say "change for Connex" like the new DLR stock.) |
S Stock
On 9 July, 21:03, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:44:58 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: [huge snip] I went in 2009 stock for the first time today. *Not sure they are a backward step as such, because was anything like them in the past? Just a bad step. Oh look someone agrees. Yebbut it must be because I hate anything new, am a trainspotter etc etc. |
S Stock
On 09/07/2010 09:55, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:14:02 -0500, wrote: In , () wrote: BTW, has anybody ever thought of increasing the bridge height at St. John's? In a tunnel? It's a cut and cover tunnel, so its structural form is much more like that of a bridge than a bored tunnel. The restricted headroom was a result of raising the height of the trackbed to reduce the frequency of a long-standing flooding problem. This was done in the 1960s at the same time as the line was electrified and Standard Tube stock was introduced to replace steam-hauled trains. Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail) could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling stock. But I guess that this is not in the cards. |
S Stock
On 08/07/2010 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote:
Yes and? I am not aware of 67 stock being made to stop with the emergency brake. I have. You can at times see the driver applying the emergency brake if he is standing on the right side of the cab, as opposed to the left. This makes for quite an abrupt stop. Might also be worth noting that I have seen them use the controller to throw the train into emergency when they are sitting on the left-hand side. |
S Stock
On 09/07/2010 18:45, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:20:03 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 8 July, 23:29, wrote: On 08/07/2010 13:24, Bruce wrote: On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:46:34 +0100, "Recliner" wrote: "Matt wrote in message I've never understood why they didn't grab some 1983 stock when they had the chance. Decades newer than what they've got and the single leaf doors wouldn't have been a problem on the IOW. Presumably because at the time, the (at the time, recently refurbished) stock was still fit for purpose, and replacing it with the ex-Jubilee stock would have been a false economy. Perhaps if there were six or seven units of 83 stock available now, then it might be worthwhile, but with 69 stock becoming available soon, I think there's a strong possibility that some of them will head to Grockle- Central, rather than straight to CF Booth's tin-can factory. I presume you mean 1967 stock. I assume that driving it in purely manual mode in short formation won't be a problem? The stock earmarked for the Island Line is either 1972 or 1973 stock. The 1972 stock is almost identical to 1967 stock but has manual diving controls. 67 stock also has manual controls. But it seems that they are set up similar to the Berlin U-Bahn in that the controller and the deadman feature are separate, whereas they are integrated into one on all other underground stock here. In A stock isn't there still a separation between handle/controller and brake, integrated from C69 stock onwards? Not the same separation you mean, I guess, but I'd have thought more likely to be how 1967 stock is, given that that's how it was on LU. http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/s...bsurfaceStock/ has a photo of an A stock driver's desk if anyone cares to analyse it. Anything for the 67s? |
S Stock
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:35:08 +0100, "
wrote: On 09/07/2010 09:55, Bruce wrote: It's a cut and cover tunnel, so its structural form is much more like that of a bridge than a bored tunnel. The restricted headroom was a result of raising the height of the trackbed to reduce the frequency of a long-standing flooding problem. This was done in the 1960s at the same time as the line was electrified and Standard Tube stock was introduced to replace steam-hauled trains. Re-excavating the trackbed back to its original levels and installing a proper pumped drainage system (essential in view of the third rail) could allow the introduction of main line (or LUL surface) rolling stock. But I guess that this is not in the cards. It was very much "on the cards" when the possibility of using secondhand trams was under discussion. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk