On Feb 28, 10:20*am, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

Much *easier to path an out of gauge load *along a line with no
passing traffic than anywhere else.

Is sub-surface Underground stock built to a wider loading loading
gauge that NR stock?

Or what is it that makes it out of gauge?

Metropolitan Railway Cars were wider at the Sole Bar than other
British main land rolling stock. *North of Quainton Road, Met. Cars
were out of guage towards Calvert, but within guage towards Verney
Junction. *"A" stock took advantage of the wider availability. *I
cannot speak to "S" stock.

Way back in 1907 the West Somerset Mineral Railway was briefly brought
back into use. *The operators used an old Metropolitan Railway Steam
loco which was brought down on the GWR and delivered over a temp
connection from the Minehead branch to the mineral line. By all
accounts it had a few bumps and scrapes with GWR infrastructure on the
way and when the short period of use on the Mineral line came to an
end the GWR is supposed to have refused to handle the Loco again and
it left by sea. So *Metropolitan Railway loading gauge being different
goes back a long way.

That says a lot. The GWR had a generous load guage.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:31:25 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:20=A0am, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

Much =A0easier to path an out of gauge load =A0along a line with no
passing traffic than anywhere else.

Is sub-surface Underground stock built to a wider loading loading
gauge that NR stock?

Or what is it that makes it out of gauge?

Metropolitan Railway Cars were wider at the Sole Bar than other
British main land rolling stock. =A0North of Quainton Road, Met. Cars
were out of guage towards Calvert, but within guage towards Verney
Junction. =A0"A" stock took advantage of the wider availability. =A0I
cannot speak to "S" stock.

Way back in 1907 the West Somerset Mineral Railway was briefly brought
back into use. =A0The operators used an old Metropolitan Railway Steam
loco which was brought down on the GWR and delivered over a temp
connection from the Minehead branch to the mineral line. By all
accounts it had a few bumps and scrapes with GWR infrastructure on the
way and when the short period of use on the Mineral line came to an
end the GWR is supposed to have refused to handle the Loco again and
it left by sea. So =A0Metropolitan Railway loading gauge being different
goes back a long way.

That says a lot. The GWR had a generous load guage.

According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S_Stock

B2003

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:25:04 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:31:25 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:20=A0am, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

Much =A0easier to path an out of gauge load =A0along a line with no
passing traffic than anywhere else.

Is sub-surface Underground stock built to a wider loading loading
gauge that NR stock?

Or what is it that makes it out of gauge?

Metropolitan Railway Cars were wider at the Sole Bar than other
British main land rolling stock. =A0North of Quainton Road, Met. Cars
were out of guage towards Calvert, but within guage towards Verney
Junction. =A0"A" stock took advantage of the wider availability. =A0I
cannot speak to "S" stock.

Way back in 1907 the West Somerset Mineral Railway was briefly brought
back into use. =A0The operators used an old Metropolitan Railway Steam
loco which was brought down on the GWR and delivered over a temp
connection from the Minehead branch to the mineral line. By all
accounts it had a few bumps and scrapes with GWR infrastructure on the
way and when the short period of use on the Mineral line came to an
end the GWR is supposed to have refused to handle the Loco again and
it left by sea. So =A0Metropolitan Railway loading gauge being different
goes back a long way.

That says a lot. The GWR had a generous load guage.

According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

I don't believe that the S stock is based on the 378s, which are an
Electrostar variant. Where did you read that they were? The S stock
is probably closer to its fellow Movia 2009 tube stock.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:29:40 +0000
Recliner wrote:
According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

I don't believe that the S stock is based on the 378s, which are an
Electrostar variant. Where did you read that they were? The S stock
is probably closer to its fellow Movia 2009 tube stock.

Can't remember offhand. I think I read it in one of the railway mags.
Still, its quite wide, though with the low floors the doors curve in at
the bottom and I don't reckon that'll be a comfortable place to stand in
crush conditions. At least though they don't seem to have wasted space
with a needlessly thick filler section behind the seats like they have on the
victoria line trains.

B2003

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:37:05 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:29:40 +0000
Recliner wrote:
According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

I don't believe that the S stock is based on the 378s, which are an
Electrostar variant. Where did you read that they were? The S stock
is probably closer to its fellow Movia 2009 tube stock.

Can't remember offhand. I think I read it in one of the railway mags.
Still, its quite wide, though with the low floors the doors curve in at
the bottom and I don't reckon that'll be a comfortable place to stand in
crush conditions.

It can be wider as the carriages are shorter.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:44:06 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Can't remember offhand. I think I read it in one of the railway mags.
Still, its quite wide, though with the low floors the doors curve in at
the bottom and I don't reckon that'll be a comfortable place to stand in
crush conditions.

It can be wider as the carriages are shorter.

I doubt even carraiges that short could be that wide on NR though its
a pity NR don't get over their aversion to articulated vehicles so the
sections could be shorter and hence wider and we could have true 3+2 seating
instead of 2+2 plus an extra seat for anorexics or dwarves.

B2003

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:24:50 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:44:06 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Can't remember offhand. I think I read it in one of the railway mags.
Still, its quite wide, though with the low floors the doors curve in at
the bottom and I don't reckon that'll be a comfortable place to stand in
crush conditions.

It can be wider as the carriages are shorter.

I doubt even carraiges that short could be that wide on NR though its
a pity NR don't get over their aversion to articulated vehicles so the
sections could be shorter and hence wider and we could have true 3+2 seating
instead of 2+2 plus an extra seat for anorexics or dwarves.

Yes, I don't understand NR's aversion to articulated stock. It's
common elsewhere in Europe, and works well -- spacious and
smooth-riding.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:44:06 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:37:05 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:29:40 +0000
Recliner wrote:
According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

I don't believe that the S stock is based on the 378s, which are an
Electrostar variant. Where did you read that they were? The S stock
is probably closer to its fellow Movia 2009 tube stock.

Going by IIRC Bombardier's website, a severe amount of dimensional
customisation is available with their Movia designs.

Can't remember offhand. I think I read it in one of the railway mags.
Still, its quite wide, though with the low floors the doors curve in at
the bottom and I don't reckon that'll be a comfortable place to stand in
crush conditions.

It can be wider as the carriages are shorter.

Not quite that simple - as in e.g. Mk3 stock, shaving the corners can
make a fair difference as can the interface between doorways and
platforms (if not limiting considerations to LU).

On Feb 28, 11:25*am, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:31:25 -0800 (PST)





77002 wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:20=A0am, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

Much =A0easier to path an out of gauge load =A0along a line with no
passing traffic than anywhere else.

Is sub-surface Underground stock built to a wider loading loading
gauge that NR stock?

Or what is it that makes it out of gauge?

Metropolitan Railway Cars were wider at the Sole Bar than other
British main land rolling stock. =A0North of Quainton Road, Met. Cars
were out of guage towards Calvert, but within guage towards Verney
Junction. =A0"A" stock took advantage of the wider availability. =A0I
cannot speak to "S" stock.

Way back in 1907 the West Somerset Mineral Railway was briefly brought
back into use. =A0The operators used an old Metropolitan Railway Steam
loco which was brought down on the GWR and delivered over a temp
connection from the Minehead branch to the mineral line. By all
accounts it had a few bumps and scrapes with GWR infrastructure on the
way and when the short period of use on the Mineral line came to an
end the GWR is supposed to have refused to handle the Loco again and
it left by sea. So =A0Metropolitan Railway loading gauge being different
goes back a long way.

That says a lot. *The GWR had a generous load guage.

According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S_Stock

Thank you Boltar. That is useful. I believe it is also the case the
subsurface stock structure gauge is now a couple of inches shorter
than the mainline.

This has not always been the case. However, IIRC, when LUL acquired a
4TC for rail tours, etc., the roof vents had to be removed. I assume
that the track bed had risen with successive ballast replacements, or
devices have been attached to the tunnel roofs over the years.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:31:15 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

On Feb 28, 11:25*am, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:31:25 -0800 (PST)





77002 wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:20=A0am, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:32:30 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

Much =A0easier to path an out of gauge load =A0along a line with no
passing traffic than anywhere else.

Is sub-surface Underground stock built to a wider loading loading
gauge that NR stock?

Or what is it that makes it out of gauge?

Metropolitan Railway Cars were wider at the Sole Bar than other
British main land rolling stock. =A0North of Quainton Road, Met. Cars
were out of guage towards Calvert, but within guage towards Verney
Junction. =A0"A" stock took advantage of the wider availability. =A0I
cannot speak to "S" stock.

Way back in 1907 the West Somerset Mineral Railway was briefly brought
back into use. =A0The operators used an old Metropolitan Railway Steam
loco which was brought down on the GWR and delivered over a temp
connection from the Minehead branch to the mineral line. By all
accounts it had a few bumps and scrapes with GWR infrastructure on the
way and when the short period of use on the Mineral line came to an
end the GWR is supposed to have refused to handle the Loco again and
it left by sea. So =A0Metropolitan Railway loading gauge being different
goes back a long way.

That says a lot. *The GWR had a generous load guage.

According to wonkypedia the new S stock is 9 foot 7 wide which is about 5
inches wider than the class 378 NR stock on which its based, so the tradition
is being continued. Assuming the entry is correct of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S_Stock

Thank you Boltar. That is useful. I believe it is also the case the
subsurface stock structure gauge is now a couple of inches shorter
than the mainline.

This has not always been the case. However, IIRC, when LUL acquired a
4TC for rail tours, etc., the roof vents had to be removed. I assume
that the track bed had risen with successive ballast replacements, or
devices have been attached to the tunnel roofs over the years.

Sub-surface stock generally seems to have a flatter roof profile
suggesting a squarer structure gauge so presumably it would have been
centrally-mounted vents causing the trouble. Do I hear a faint bell
ringing somewhere in the distant past concerning brake vans and their
chimneys when passing through the Underground ?