|
LU A stock over NR routes
Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into service how
will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today) so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes or will it have to go by road? B2003 |
LU A stock over NR routes
On 12 Aug, 14:11, David Hansen
wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:04:47 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be wrote this:- Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into service how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today) so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes or will it have to go by road? Presumably it arrived by rail, so that with a will there should be a way of taking it away by rail. Perhaps lines have been closed since the 1960s though. -- * David Hansen, Edinburgh *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 Where does new stock get delivered to now, anyway? In the distant past it was always delivered to West Ruislip for commissioning, but I've been that way a few times, and it certainly isn't full of 2009 stock or S stock. |
LU A stock over NR routes
On Aug 12, 2:24*pm, MIG wrote:
On 12 Aug, 14:11, David Hansen wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:04:47 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be wrote this:- Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into service how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today) so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes or will it have to go by road? Presumably it arrived by rail, so that with a will there should be a way of taking it away by rail. Perhaps lines have been closed since the 1960s though. -- * David Hansen, Edinburgh *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 Where does new stock get delivered to now, anyway? In the distant past it was always delivered to West Ruislip for commissioning, but I've been that way a few times, and it certainly isn't full of 2009 stock or S stock.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The S stock is being delivered to Neasden, by rail via Aylesbury & Princes Risborough. The A stock was certainly moved by rail when it was refurbished so there must be some routes cleared for it. RPM |
LU A stock over NR routes
On 12 Aug, 14:04, wrote:
Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into service how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today) so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes or will it have to go by road? Ah, but, in kinematic envelope terms the vehicles are relatively short (16m according to wackypædia) so the throw on curves would not be as substantial as an equiv. 20m carriage. Need to sit down and do the geometry to work out how much, mind AE |
LU A stock over NR routes
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Andy Elms wrote: On 12 Aug, 14:04, wrote: Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into servic= e how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today)= so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes o= r will it have to go by road? Ah, but, in kinematic envelope terms the vehicles are relatively short (16m according to wackyp=E6dia) so the throw on curves would not be as substantial as an equiv. 20m carriage. I always thought 2.85 (ish) was the absolute maximum width no matter what the length of the carraiges. Is this not the case? B2003 |
LU A stock over NR routes
|
LU A stock over NR routes
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:28:48 -0700 (PDT), RPM
wrote: On Aug 12, 2:24*pm, MIG wrote: On 12 Aug, 14:11, David Hansen wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:04:47 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be wrote this:- Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into service how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today) so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes or will it have to go by road? Presumably it arrived by rail, so that with a will there should be a way of taking it away by rail. Perhaps lines have been closed since the 1960s though. -- * David Hansen, Edinburgh *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 Where does new stock get delivered to now, anyway? In the distant past it was always delivered to West Ruislip for commissioning, but I've been that way a few times, and it certainly isn't full of 2009 stock or S stock.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The S stock is being delivered to Neasden, by rail via Aylesbury & Princes Risborough. The A stock was certainly moved by rail when it was refurbished so there must be some routes cleared for it. IIRC it got as far as Rosyth. ITYF the practical collision risk for any infrastructure is mainly involved with using crossovers within platformed areas or allowing the stock to rattle around enough to reach the sideways limits of the suspension while passing through platforms, these being the matters addressed in the movement instructions for CO/CP stock from Neasden to Quainton Road. |
LU A stock over NR routes
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:14:11 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote: On 2010\08\12 16:13, d wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Andy wrote: On 12 Aug, 14:04, wrote: Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into servic= e how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today)= so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes o= r will it have to go by road? Ah, but, in kinematic envelope terms the vehicles are relatively short (16m according to wackyp=E6dia) so the throw on curves would not be as substantial as an equiv. 20m carriage. That also depends on the position of the main pin on the bogie and the corresponding pivot point on the carriage rather than just the vehicle length. IIRC modern carriages (Mk3 etc.) are in any case tapered to compensate for their length and thus have a smaller swept path on the _outside_ of a smallest radius curve than A stock. I always thought 2.85 (ish) was the absolute maximum width no matter what the length of the carraiges. Is this not the case? You don't mind denting them so much on the way out. |
LU A stock over NR routes
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:28:48 -0700 (PDT), RPM wrote: The S stock is being delivered to Neasden, by rail via Aylesbury & Princes Risborough. The A stock was certainly moved by rail when it was refurbished so there must be some routes cleared for it. IIRC it got as far as Rosyth. The A stock was refurbished at Derby in the early 1990s. Eight-car sets were moved (generally Class 37 hauled) from Neasden to Aylesbury, run round, then via Wycombe and the Greenford loop to Didcot and forward via Oxford, refurbished sets returning via the same route. I don't think that any trains went via Bicester due to capacity issues on the (then) single line and crewing issues. The move from Neasden usually started on Saturdays, mid-morning. Somewhere I've got some pictures of unrefurbished A stock sitting in platform 2 at Aylesbury. Unfortunately the S stock deliveries are not so easily photographable, occurring late at night, arriving at Neasden at around 01:00 on Friday mornings (so far - assuming that the diagram doesn't change when deliveries pick up). |
LU A stock over NR routes
On 12 Aug, 14:24, MIG wrote:
On 12 Aug, 14:11, David Hansen wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:04:47 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be wrote this:- Now that the S stock trains are slowly going to be introduced into service how will the A stock go to scrap? Its apparently 10cm wider than the maximum network rail loading gauge (according to an article I read in Rail today) so will they be able to move it by rail over some specially cleared routes or will it have to go by road? Presumably it arrived by rail, so that with a will there should be a way of taking it away by rail. Perhaps lines have been closed since the 1960s though. -- * David Hansen, Edinburgh *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 Where does new stock get delivered to now, anyway? In the distant past it was always delivered to West Ruislip for commissioning, but I've been that way a few times, and it certainly isn't full of 2009 stock or S stock. 2009 stock is delivered by road to Northumberland Park, as it isn't cleared for passage on the Piccadilly and onto the Victoria line via the crossovers from Finsbury Park. The S-stock is delivered directly to Neasden for commissioning. |
LU A stock over NR routes
In message
, at 06:39:17 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Andy remarked: The S-stock is delivered directly to Neasden for commissioning. By rail? -- Roland Perry |
LU A stock over NR routes
On Aug 13, 7:34*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 06:39:17 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Andy remarked: The S-stock is delivered directly to Neasden for commissioning. By rail? Yes, as mentioned by RPM. |
LU A stock over NR routes
Digressing somewhat....
I'm guessing that when the A stock finally bows out, there will be enthusiast interest in a farewell tour. But can the A stock venture onto any non-Met metals? For example, do they 'fit' east of Aldgate on the District, if the doors are kept closed to avoid short platform issues? Otherwise, it will be a farewell wholly over familiar territory, which would be appropriate but not very novel.* Do the London Transport Museum have plans to preserve an A stock unit, or at least a driving car? Chris * But still more interesting than any 1967 stock farewell tour, which I guess would be restricted to Vic metals? |
LU A stock over NR routes
On Aug 13, 9:30*pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
Digressing somewhat.... I'm guessing that when the A stock finally bows out, there will be enthusiast interest in a farewell tour. But can the A stock venture onto any non-Met metals? For example, do they 'fit' east of Aldgate on the District, if the doors are kept closed to avoid short platform issues? Otherwise, it will be a farewell wholly over familiar territory, which would be appropriate but not very novel.* East of Aldgate, they used to fit at least as far as the St. Marys curve onto the ELL and they can also go to Edgware Road in passenger service. They also used to be cleared from Rayners Lane to Acton and maybe even along the District to High Street Kensington and onto Edgware Road, but I'm not sure if this route is still available. Do the London Transport Museum have plans to preserve an A stock unit, or at least a driving car? Chris * But still more interesting than any 1967 stock farewell tour, which I guess would be restricted to Vic metals? The 1967 stock has run one tour using the connections to/from the Piccadilly line at Finsbury Park. I don't know if such a move would still be possible. |
LU A stock over NR routes
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote: 2009 stock is delivered by road to Northumberland Park, as it isn't cleared for passage on the Piccadilly and onto the Victoria line via the crossovers from Finsbury Park. 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? B2003 |
LU A stock over NR routes
On 17 Aug, 09:50, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Andy wrote: 2009 stock is delivered by road to Northumberland Park, as it isn't cleared for passage on the Piccadilly and onto the Victoria line via the crossovers from Finsbury Park. 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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
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* B2003 |
LU A stock over NR routes
On 17 Aug, 12:34, wrote:
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* 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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
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. B2003 |
LU A stock over NR routes
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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
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 |
LU A stock over NR routes
|
LU A stock over NR routes
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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
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/ |
LU A stock over NR routes
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 |
LU A stock over NR routes
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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
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. |
LU A stock over NR routes
"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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk