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.

"Bruce" wrote

The Metropolitan Railway was originally built (from a junction with
the GWR at Paddington to Farringdon Street) to mixed standard and
broad gauge (7' 0¼") and was initially operated by the GWR using GWR
rolling stock. This is one reason why the Met has been able to
operate larger trains than standard.

Operation by the GWR with broad gauge stock lasted for 8 months. The GWR and
Met then fell out, and the GWR gave 9 days notice that they'd stop working
the line, expecting that the Met would give in and allow the GWR to take
them over. Instead the Met borrowed standard gauge stock from the Great
Northern and worked the line themselves. Mixed gauge lasted for some time
(Did the GWR use it for broad gauge goods?), and when the Widened Lines were
opened they too were provided with mixed gauge track, though it is uncertain
whether broad gauge trains ever used the Widened Lines.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote:



"Bruce" wrote

The Metropolitan Railway was originally built (from a junction with
the GWR at Paddington to Farringdon Street) to mixed standard and
broad gauge (7' 0¼") and was initially operated by the GWR using GWR
rolling stock. This is one reason why the Met has been able to
operate larger trains than standard.

Operation by the GWR with broad gauge stock lasted for 8 months. The GWR and
Met then fell out, and the GWR gave 9 days notice that they'd stop working
the line, expecting that the Met would give in and allow the GWR to take
them over. Instead the Met borrowed standard gauge stock from the Great
Northern and worked the line themselves. Mixed gauge lasted for some time
(Did the GWR use it for broad gauge goods?), and when the Widened Lines were
opened they too were provided with mixed gauge track, though it is uncertain
whether broad gauge trains ever used the Widened Lines.


The fact that broad gauge trains lasted mere months is irrelevant.

The fact is that the infrastructure was built to broad gauge
standards, meaning that the Met was able to operate wider trains than
most railways could, even on standard gauge track.

GWR operations may only have lasted months, but the broad gauge
infrastructure still benefits the Met nearly 150 years later.

On Feb 28, 1:14*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote

The Metropolitan Railway was originally built (from a junction with
the GWR at Paddington to Farringdon Street) to mixed standard and
broad gauge (7' 0 ") and was initially operated by the GWR using GWR
rolling stock. *This is one reason why the Met has been able to
operate larger trains than standard.

Operation by the GWR with broad gauge stock lasted for 8 months. The GWR and
Met then fell out, and the GWR gave 9 days notice that they'd stop working
the line, expecting that the Met would give in and allow the GWR to take
them over. Instead the Met borrowed standard gauge stock from the Great
Northern and worked the line themselves. Mixed gauge lasted for some time
(Did the GWR use it for broad gauge goods?), and when the Widened Lines were
opened they too were provided with mixed gauge track, though it is uncertain
whether broad gauge trains ever used the Widened Lines.

Thank you sharing the historical background Peter. A century and a
half later folks benefit from the short lived GW/Met. alliance.

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 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 ?

"Bruce":
The Metropolitan Railway was originally built (from a junction with
the GWR at Paddington to Farringdon Street) to mixed standard and
broad gauge (7' 0¼") and was initially operated by the GWR using GWR
rolling stock. This is one reason why the Met has been able to
operate larger trains than standard.

Peter Masson:
Operation by the GWR with broad gauge stock lasted for 8 months.

Even less: 10 January to 10 August 1863, inclusive.

The GWR and Met then fell out, and the GWR gave 9 days notice that
they'd stop working the line, expecting that the Met would give in
and allow the GWR to take them over.

The dispute was basically over pathing rights. As Bruce said, the Met
was built with a track connection to the GWR, and this was intended
not only for moving stock on and off the line, but also for through
suburban trains from the GWR to Farringdon (and Moorgate when the line
was extended).

But the GNR also had a track connection at King's Cross, and was also
interested in running trains to Farringdon. And the Met realized that
with their own trains on the line as well, it would be over capacity.

Instead of compromising on the number of through trains, the GWR
decided to force the issue.

Instead the Met borrowed standard gauge stock from the Great Northern
and worked the line themselves.

Right. The L&NWR also supplied some passenger cars. But whereas
the GWR had used purpose-built condensing steam engines, the GNR had
to settle for running a flexible pipe to the tender to condense the
steam there.

After this, the Met then ordered their own condensing engines and
their own rolling stock, which replaced the GNR's within a couple
of years.

Mixed gauge lasted for some time (Did the GWR use it for broad gauge
goods?),

I don't know, but they did run broad-gauge passenger trains. After the
GWR lost the battle for control, they did come to an agreement, and
quickly. Both GWR and GNR trains began running to through Farringdon
on 1 October 1863, and later to Moorgate. The last GWR broad-gauge
service was on 14 March 1869.

and when the Widened Lines were opened they too were provided with
mixed gauge track, though it is uncertain whether broad gauge trains
ever used the Widened Lines.

You sure about that?

The Widened Lines are, of course, what is now the part of Thameslink
that runs alongside the Met/Circle/H&C, plus the now closed branch
to Moorgate. They were created to allow capacity for trains running
through between the GNR or Midland and the LC&DR (like Thameslink)
and from these railways to Moorgate. But none of the books I checked
mention whether mixed-gauge track was installed; as you imply, it
would not have been needed.
--
Mark Brader "I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to
Toronto work in a group when you're omnipotent."
"Deja Q", ST:TNG, Richard Danus

My text in this article is in the public domain.

(Mark Brader) wrote:

"Bruce":
The Metropolitan Railway was originally built (from a junction with
the GWR at Paddington to Farringdon Street) to mixed standard and
broad gauge (7' 0¼") and was initially operated by the GWR using GWR
rolling stock. This is one reason why the Met has been able to
operate larger trains than standard.

Peter Masson:
Operation by the GWR with broad gauge stock lasted for 8 months.

Even less: 10 January to 10 August 1863, inclusive.

The GWR and Met then fell out, and the GWR gave 9 days notice that
they'd stop working the line, expecting that the Met would give in
and allow the GWR to take them over.

The dispute was basically over pathing rights. As Bruce said, the Met
was built with a track connection to the GWR, and this was intended
not only for moving stock on and off the line, but also for through
suburban trains from the GWR to Farringdon (and Moorgate when the line
was extended).

But the GNR also had a track connection at King's Cross, and was also
interested in running trains to Farringdon. And the Met realized that
with their own trains on the line as well, it would be over capacity.

Instead of compromising on the number of through trains, the GWR
decided to force the issue.

Instead the Met borrowed standard gauge stock from the Great Northern
and worked the line themselves.

Right. The L&NWR also supplied some passenger cars. But whereas
the GWR had used purpose-built condensing steam engines, the GNR had
to settle for running a flexible pipe to the tender to condense the
steam there.

After this, the Met then ordered their own condensing engines and
their own rolling stock, which replaced the GNR's within a couple
of years.

Mixed gauge lasted for some time (Did the GWR use it for broad gauge
goods?),

I don't know, but they did run broad-gauge passenger trains. After the
GWR lost the battle for control, they did come to an agreement, and
quickly. Both GWR and GNR trains began running to through Farringdon
on 1 October 1863, and later to Moorgate. The last GWR broad-gauge
service was on 14 March 1869.

and when the Widened Lines were opened they too were provided with
mixed gauge track, though it is uncertain whether broad gauge trains
ever used the Widened Lines.

You sure about that?

The Widened Lines are, of course, what is now the part of Thameslink
that runs alongside the Met/Circle/H&C, plus the now closed branch
to Moorgate. They were created to allow capacity for trains running
through between the GNR or Midland and the LC&DR (like Thameslink)
and from these railways to Moorgate. But none of the books I checked
mention whether mixed-gauge track was installed; as you imply, it
would not have been needed.


Thanks Mark, interesting background.