"Jack Taylor" Jack @Carney.co.uk wrote in message k...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...

I guess that begs the question of why A stock was given a profile that
they knew
would not fit in some of the sub surface tunnels. After all , the
underground was
well and truly integrated in the 60s so it wasn't because the met line was
still
a seperate competing railway, and London Transport had no way of knowing
where
the trains might be needed in 20 or 30 years. Seems a strange design
decision to
make to me.

By that token one could then also equally argue why did they give the D78
stock the profile that it has, knowing that it will not fit around the west
side of the Circle Line, requiring C69/77 stock to be used on District line
Wimbleware services.

Well quite.

main line in years to come. Perhaps we will then be arguing about how
unsuitable the stock is on one or other of the lines because it was not
purpose-built for the line in question?

Its quite easy to build a number of variations that all have the same loading
gauge and profile but perhaps different numbers of doors and internal layout
for the different types of routes they'll run. IMO building a train that won't
physically fit on a large portion of your network is at best short sighted and
at worst just plain bloody stupid.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Jack Taylor" Jack @Carney.co.uk wrote in message
k...

By that token one could then also equally argue why did they give the
D78
stock the profile that it has, knowing that it will not fit around the
west
side of the Circle Line, requiring C69/77 stock to be used on District
line
Wimbleware services.

Well quite.

But D78s do fit on the west side of the Circle. They're simply too long for
some of the platforms. Which begs the questions, should they have been built
shorter and reduced the capacity on the main District routes?


main line in years to come. Perhaps we will then be arguing about how
unsuitable the stock is on one or other of the lines because it was not
purpose-built for the line in question?

Its quite easy to build a number of variations that all have the same
loading
gauge and profile but perhaps different numbers of doors and internal
layout
for the different types of routes they'll run. IMO building a train that
won't
physically fit on a large portion of your network is at best short sighted
and
at worst just plain bloody stupid.


So by your last comment should all stock be tube stock and of a length that
will fit in the shortest platform on the network?

"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Jack Taylor" Jack @Carney.co.uk wrote in message
k...

By that token one could then also equally argue why did they give the
D78
stock the profile that it has, knowing that it will not fit around the
west
side of the Circle Line, requiring C69/77 stock to be used on District
line
Wimbleware services.

Well quite.

But D78s do fit on the west side of the Circle. They're simply too long for
some of the platforms. Which begs the questions, should they have been built
shorter and reduced the capacity on the main District routes?

Well LU are quite happy to introduce shorter trains that carry less people than
the previous stock (new northern line trains for example) so why not?

Its quite easy to build a number of variations that all have the same
loading
gauge and profile but perhaps different numbers of doors and internal
layout
for the different types of routes they'll run. IMO building a train that
won't
physically fit on a large portion of your network is at best short sighted
and
at worst just plain bloody stupid.


So by your last comment should all stock be tube stock and of a length that
will fit in the shortest platform on the network?

Well obviously not given the huge size difference. But here we're merely
talking about the odd half inch here or there than would make NO difference to
the carrying capacity of the fleet but would have made it far more flexible
operationally. After all , Upminster is just as far out as Amersham from
central london so who's to say the A stock might never have been used on that
route?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
m...
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...

So by your last comment should all stock be tube stock and of a length
that
will fit in the shortest platform on the network?

Well obviously not given the huge size difference. But here we're merely
talking about the odd half inch here or there than would make NO
difference to
the carrying capacity of the fleet but would have made it far more
flexible
operationally. After all , Upminster is just as far out as Amersham from
central london so who's to say the A stock might never have been used on
that
route?

Upminster's a lot closer in than Amersham - Upminster's about 17 miles from
Trafalger Square, Amersham's more like 24 miles. Plus Upminster's in zone 6,
Amersham's in zone D.

Jonn

In reply to news post, which Jonn Elledge
wrote on Tue, 13 Jul 2004 -
Well obviously not given the huge size difference. But here we're merely
talking about the odd half inch here or there than would make NO
difference to
the carrying capacity of the fleet but would have made it far more
flexible
operationally. After all , Upminster is just as far out as Amersham from
central london so who's to say the A stock might never have been used on
that
route?

Upminster's a lot closer in than Amersham - Upminster's about 17 miles from
Trafalger Square, Amersham's more like 24 miles. Plus Upminster's in zone 6,
Amersham's in zone D.

I believe Amersham is 27 miles from Trafalger Square. The
characteristics of the Met line may also have influenced the A stock
design, the need for fast and slow services
--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
m...
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...

So by your last comment should all stock be tube stock and of a length
that
will fit in the shortest platform on the network?

Well obviously not given the huge size difference. But here we're merely
talking about the odd half inch here or there than would make NO
difference to
the carrying capacity of the fleet but would have made it far more
flexible
operationally. After all , Upminster is just as far out as Amersham from
central london so who's to say the A stock might never have been used on
that
route?

Upminster's a lot closer in than Amersham - Upminster's about 17 miles from
Trafalger Square, Amersham's more like 24 miles. Plus Upminster's in zone 6,
Amersham's in zone D.

I can hear the sounds of hairs being split. The Met also terminates at
Uxbridge which is a lot closer in than Amersham. Whats the reason for using
A stock on that branch then? And what about the East london line. That must
go all of 3 miles south of the river. The point is that A stock is just another
train and if the designers had had a bit of forsight it could have been used
over the whole sub surface system if needs be. They didn't so it can't. Maybe
thats not an issue now but on the other hand it may have come in very useful in
times past, who knows?

B2003