Christine wrote in message . ..
Unfortunately Networkers aren't passed to run on the Southern lines at

How come? Would they need mods to be able to do so?

B2003

In article ,
(Boltar) wrote:

Christine wrote in message
. ..
Unfortunately Networkers aren't passed to run on the Southern lines at

How come? Would they need mods to be able to do so?

They might not but the signalling could.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce.
Several places having to have 'glued ballast'.

Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they
have never gauged tested the area for Networkers



On 3 Dec 2004 08:46:27 -0800, (Boltar) wrote:

Christine wrote in message . ..
Unfortunately Networkers aren't passed to run on the Southern lines at

How come? Would they need mods to be able to do so?

B2003


Life without sex just isn't life.
Make love not war!

Christine wrote:
There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce.
Several places having to have 'glued ballast'.

Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they
have never gauged tested the area for Networkers

It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british
railways.
Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare
foot
here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive
but
how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge
supports
etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot
wide
permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved
platforms,
just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Christine wrote:
There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce.
Several places having to have 'glued ballast'.

Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they
have never gauged tested the area for Networkers

It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british
railways. Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe
leave a spare foot here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels
this would be expensive but how much extra would it have cost to make
lineside obstacles, bridge supports etc a foot or 2 further from the
track when you're building a 30 foot wide permanent way anyway? Plus
those victorians did loved their curved platforms, just to make life
a real pain for longer vehicles.


The problem is caused by building longer and wider trains which are a
tighter fit to the loading gauge. Perhaps if you could find a way of
reducing average people sizes to Victorian dimensions, we could revert
to narrower trains.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message . com on 6 Dec 2004
04:42:17 -0800 in uk.transport.london, "Boltar" tapped
out on the keyboard:


It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british
railways.
Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare
foot
here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive
but
how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge
supports
etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot
wide
permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved
platforms,
just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles.

B2003

I seem to recall that Hudson, the "Railway King", deliberately made sure his
lines were built with a tighter loading gauge, in order to prevent other
companies getting running powers over his lines.

--
John Youles Norwich England UK
j dot y.o.u.l.e.s at n.t.l.w.o.r.l.d dot c.o.m
http://www.ukip.org/

The problem was, that the Railways were not constructed or designed by
a single entity. Todays railways are an amalgamation of several
different designers works, thus the differing Structure gauges,
cornice heights, platform heights etc. And thanks to the Thatcherite
'competition must prevail' culture, several different companies build
the different trains for todays railways. So there is no one standard.
No one builds a train with view to the fact it maybe needed to run on
lines away from the build remit.

The Networkers were an expensive build in terms of infrastructure
alterations. And even today they aren't used to their full potential.
They have regenative braking which cannot be used because the Traction
Supply isn't capable of sustaining trains putting current back into
the system!

Christine



On 6 Dec 2004 04:42:17 -0800, "Boltar" wrote:


Christine wrote:
There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce.
Several places having to have 'glued ballast'.

Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they
have never gauged tested the area for Networkers

It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british
railways.
Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare
foot
here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive
but
how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge
supports
etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot
wide
permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved
platforms,
just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles.

B2003


Life without sex just isn't life.
Make love not war!