On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

IIRC, the additional 7th cars inserted into all of the 96 stock were unpowered, having concrete blocks in lieu of traction motors so the weight and suspension settings remained the same. I always assumed that the new complete trains used the same "obsolete" traction motors, for the sake of commonality.

I'm sure that I read somewhere recently that LU was looking to retraction the 95 and/or 96 fleets.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:10:52 -0800 (PST), Steve Lewis
wrote:

IIRC, the additional 7th cars inserted into all of the 96 stock were unpowered, having concrete blocks in lieu of traction motors so the weight and suspension settings remained the same. I always assumed that the new complete trains used the same "obsolete" traction motors, for the sake of commonality.

I'm sure that I read somewhere recently that LU was looking to retraction the 95 and/or 96 fleets.

Yes, that rings a bell. Presumably the priority would be to update the
older 96 stock to make them more compatible with the 95 stock? But if
a significant number of a newer version is ordered (the 2020 stock?),
I wonder if the older 95 and 96 stocks could also be updated to use
similar, more efficient, technology?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:31:45 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:28:25 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:11:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I refer you to the 2009 stock that they made too big to run on the piccadilly
line so has to be carted in and out of northumberland park by lorry , then
they go and waste the few inches of extra space with extra thick interior
decor.

To be fair, the 2009 stock wasn't specified by TfL, and more's the pity. We

Ok, didn't realise that. You still have to ask "why?" though since a lot of
the people working for metronet would have been the same people who would
have designed the train for LU anyway. Guess we'll never know.

Surely it would be possible to buy some new rolling stock and shuffle
the existing fleets in order to render each line homogenous?

Would be nice if they made them walk through. God knows, the northern line
trains need every bit of extra space they can get in the rush hour.

Extremely unlikely. There isn't time for an all-new articulated design,
plus it would be hard to keep them externally similar.

Is it not possible to have walk through with non-articulated tube stock in
the style of S stock and the 378s?

One would have thought so. The articulated excuse is just that, a
poor excuse.

And why do you think that? Perhaps you could provide some technical
justification for your allegation? As a hint, hope isn't enough.

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

My point precisely. Not a metro that it now is.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Steve Lewis) wrote:

IIRC, the additional 7th cars inserted into all of the 96 stock were
unpowered, having concrete blocks in lieu of traction motors so the
weight and suspension settings remained the same. I always assumed
that the new complete trains used the same "obsolete" traction
motors, for the sake of commonality.

I'm sure that I read somewhere recently that LU was looking to
retraction the 95 and/or 96 fleets.

The order included some entire trains as well as the 7th cars.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:33:29 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

It would have been nationalised as part of BR, and no doubt subject to
Beeching rationalisation. I suspect it would be in worse shape than it
is today. For example, would it have kept its right to run beyond
Baker Street on to the LT Circle line?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 06:42:03 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Steve Lewis) wrote:

IIRC, the additional 7th cars inserted into all of the 96 stock were
unpowered, having concrete blocks in lieu of traction motors so the
weight and suspension settings remained the same. I always assumed
that the new complete trains used the same "obsolete" traction
motors, for the sake of commonality.

I'm sure that I read somewhere recently that LU was looking to
retraction the 95 and/or 96 fleets.

The order included some entire trains as well as the 7th cars.

Yes, I think four of them.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 06:42:03 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

My point precisely. Not a metro that it now is.

Is a metro suitable for Amersham and Chesham, not to mention the lost
service to Aylesbuty.

On 2015\12\31 12:42, wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

My point precisely. Not a metro that it now is.


I don't know what point you're making. What's the difference between a
metro and a suburban railway? Which is better?