On 17 Aug, 14:54, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:38:33 -0700 (PDT)

Andy wrote:
Yes, but the '73 stock is narrower than both the '67 and '09 stock,
the overhand at the corners depends on both the length, the width and
the positions of the bogies on the cars.

Whatever the reason, to me it seems daft to have built a train to large to
be able to run on any other tube line and can't even be rail hauled to its
depot. And then instead of using the tiny amount of extra space the larger
size has gained they waste it with thick walls and door pillars. Common
sense was in short supply when the 2009 trains were designed IMO.


It's not daft to build a train to fit the more modern infrastructure
on the Victoria line, the 2009 stock would never be able to run on any
other tube line in passenger service, as they are too long (they're
even longer than the '92 stock on the Central). As I said, rail
haulage for delivery via the Piccadilly line would always have been
unlikely due to the lack of capacity for delivery runs, if this wasn't
the case, we might have seen the '67 stock being taken away via this
route, but that is leaving by road. I also don't know if the 2009
stock can be fitted with the necessary tripcocks for running over
conventionally signaled lines, the '67 stock can be.

Of course, without the extra width available, the thick walls and door
pillars would have impinged even more into the passenger space and
there may be a good reason for this bit of the design.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
It's not daft to build a train to fit the more modern infrastructure
on the Victoria line, the 2009 stock would never be able to run on any

The reason AFAIK that the victoria line tunnels were built larger was to reduce
air resistence and make the trains more efficient. Presumably at least part
of those savings have now been lost due to the bigger trains.

other tube line in passenger service, as they are too long (they're
even longer than the '92 stock on the Central). As I said, rail
haulage for delivery via the Piccadilly line would always have been
unlikely due to the lack of capacity for delivery runs, if this wasn't
the case, we might have seen the '67 stock being taken away via this
route, but that is leaving by road. I also don't know if the 2009
stock can be fitted with the necessary tripcocks for running over
conventionally signaled lines, the '67 stock can be.

Those arn't showstoppers though. If there ever was cascading they could
reform them into 6 or 7 car trains and I'm sure tripcocks could be fitted
somehow though I suspect by the time the 2009 stock is getting on a bit
tripcocks will be a distant memory anyway.

Theres notalot you can do about a train thats too big to fit in a tunnel
however.

Of course, without the extra width available, the thick walls and door
pillars would have impinged even more into the passenger space and
there may be a good reason for this bit of the design.

Well if there is its certainly eluded me.

B2003

In message
d wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
It's not daft to build a train to fit the more modern infrastructure
on the Victoria line, the 2009 stock would never be able to run on any

The reason AFAIK that the victoria line tunnels were built larger was to
reduce air resistence and make the trains more efficient. Presumably at
least part of those savings have now been lost due to the bigger trains.

[snip]

The Victoria Line booklet[1] published by LT in 1969 states that it was
discovered that opening out the tunnels to 12'6" (from 12') did indeed reduce
the air drag to a degree comparable to that of open-air operation. However
it is emphatic that that was not a design criterium. Minimum tunnel diameter
is actually 12'2" so there will be little losss of efficency in practice.

[1] The Story of the Victoria Line by John R Day. P28

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On 17 Aug, 16:24, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
It's not daft to build a train to fit the more modern infrastructure
on the Victoria line, the 2009 stock would never be able to run on any

The reason AFAIK that the victoria line tunnels were built larger was to
reduce *air resistence and make the trains more efficient. Presumably at
least part of those savings have now been lost due to the bigger trains..

[snip]

The Victoria Line booklet[1] published by LT in 1969 states that it was
discovered that opening out the tunnels to 12'6" (from 12') did indeed reduce
the air drag to a degree comparable to that of open-air operation. *However
it is emphatic that that was not a design criterium. *Minimum tunnel diameter
is actually 12'2" so there will be little losss of efficency in practice.

[1] The Story of the Victoria Line by John R Day. P28

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Let's cut to the chase. The 2009 stock is a monumentally crap design
that we are going to be stuck with for another 40 years. I could cry.

Desiros can be built without six inch thick walls and chunky
obstructions everywhere (apart from the armrests). Even the worst LU
stock till now has seats that one can sit in. The design of the 2009
stock is either idiotic or malicious. Words fail me.

In message
MIG wrote:

On 17 Aug, 16:24, Graeme wrote:
In message * * * * *
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Andy
wrote:
It's not daft to build a train to fit the more modern infrastructure
on the Victoria line, the 2009 stock would never be able to run on
any

The reason AFAIK that the victoria line tunnels were built larger was
to reduce *air resistence and make the trains more efficient.
Presumably at least part of those savings have now been lost due to the
bigger trains.

[snip]

The Victoria Line booklet[1] published by LT in 1969 states that it was
discovered that opening out the tunnels to 12'6" (from 12') did indeed
reduce the air drag to a degree comparable to that of open-air operation.
*However it is emphatic that that was not a design criterium. *Minimum
tunnel diameter is actually 12'2" so there will be little losss of
efficency in practice.

[1] The Story of the Victoria Line by John R Day. P28

Let's cut to the chase. The 2009 stock is a monumentally crap design that
we are going to be stuck with for another 40 years.

Not used it yet so can't comment.

I could cry.

Have a tissue...


Desiros can be built without six inch thick walls and chunky
obstructions everywhere (apart from the armrests). Even the worst LU
stock till now has seats that one can sit in. The design of the 2009
stock is either idiotic or malicious. Words fail me.

You hide it well.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
I read that 2009 stock is only 4cm wider that 67 stock. Are clearences
really so tight on the piccadilly that they couldn't be moved slowly via
rail over that line?


The cars are also slightly longer than the '67 stock, so the overhang
on the tight curves on the Piccadilly line is probably too much.
That's not to say that they wouldn't squeeze down the Piccadilly
tunnels running slowly, just that the time taken may be too long to
fit around the nightly engineering works.

You might have a point. Though the 73 stock on the piccadilly has very
long
cars so I wouldn't have thought the overhang on the 2009 could be any
greater
than those. *shrug*

ISTR that when it was delivered the Piccadilly stock didn't fit the
Piccadilly tunnels, and clearances had to be adjusted in a few places.

Peter

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:04:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
I read that 2009 stock is only 4cm wider that 67 stock. Are clearences
really so tight on the piccadilly that they couldn't be moved slowly via
rail over that line?


The cars are also slightly longer than the '67 stock, so the overhang
on the tight curves on the Piccadilly line is probably too much.
That's not to say that they wouldn't squeeze down the Piccadilly
tunnels running slowly, just that the time taken may be too long to
fit around the nightly engineering works.

You might have a point. Though the 73 stock on the piccadilly has very
long
cars so I wouldn't have thought the overhang on the 2009 could be any
greater
than those. *shrug*

ISTR that when it was delivered the Piccadilly stock didn't fit the
Piccadilly tunnels, and clearances had to be adjusted in a few places.

IIRC the current Central Line stock also had trouble with some curves
in the vertical plain causing scraped roofs.

On Aug 17, 10:20*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:04:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"





wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
I read that 2009 stock is only 4cm wider that 67 stock. Are clearences
really so tight on the piccadilly that they couldn't be moved slowly via
rail over that line?

The cars are also slightly longer than the '67 stock, so the overhang
on the tight curves on the Piccadilly line is probably too much.
That's not to say that they wouldn't squeeze down the Piccadilly
tunnels running slowly, just that the time taken may be too long to
fit around the nightly engineering works.

You might have a point. Though the 73 stock on the piccadilly has very
long
cars so I wouldn't have thought the overhang on the 2009 could be any
greater
than those. *shrug*

ISTR that when it was delivered the Piccadilly stock didn't fit the
Piccadilly tunnels, and clearances had to be adjusted in a few places.

IIRC the current Central Line stock also had trouble with some curves
in the vertical plain causing scraped roofs.

And the '92 stock on the Waterloo and City also needed the tunnel
trimming back slightly before it could run.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:35:24 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

On Aug 17, 10:20*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:04:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"


wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
I read that 2009 stock is only 4cm wider that 67 stock. Are clearences
really so tight on the piccadilly that they couldn't be moved slowly via
rail over that line?

The cars are also slightly longer than the '67 stock, so the overhang
on the tight curves on the Piccadilly line is probably too much.
That's not to say that they wouldn't squeeze down the Piccadilly
tunnels running slowly, just that the time taken may be too long to
fit around the nightly engineering works.

You might have a point. Though the 73 stock on the piccadilly has very
long
cars so I wouldn't have thought the overhang on the 2009 could be any
greater
than those. *shrug*

ISTR that when it was delivered the Piccadilly stock didn't fit the
Piccadilly tunnels, and clearances had to be adjusted in a few places.

IIRC the current Central Line stock also had trouble with some curves
in the vertical plain causing scraped roofs.

And the '92 stock on the Waterloo and City also needed the tunnel
trimming back slightly before it could run.

Same stock, so possibly I'm thinking of the same occurence although
some of the bits between Bank and Holborn involve some acrobatics
which might have given the same trouble.

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 17 Aug, 16:24, Graeme wrote:
In message
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
It's not daft to build a train to fit the more modern infrastructure
on the Victoria line, the 2009 stock would never be able to run on any

The reason AFAIK that the victoria line tunnels were built larger was
to
reduce air resistence and make the trains more efficient. Presumably
at
least part of those savings have now been lost due to the bigger
trains.

[snip]

The Victoria Line booklet[1] published by LT in 1969 states that it was
discovered that opening out the tunnels to 12'6" (from 12') did indeed
reduce
the air drag to a degree comparable to that of open-air operation.
However
it is emphatic that that was not a design criterium. Minimum tunnel
diameter
is actually 12'2" so there will be little losss of efficency in practice.

[1] The Story of the Victoria Line by John R Day. P28

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Let's cut to the chase. The 2009 stock is a monumentally crap design
that we are going to be stuck with for another 40 years. I could cry.


It's not that bad. It is still hot and rancid which is the issue that needs
addressing and they need to sort the teething problems. The number of
failures of 67 stock that I have encountered currently stands at zero!
Granted there was the set with the dodgy door recently but it still moved.

John