District Stock
 

Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next to a
freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to Ealing depot)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one they
redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two main things I
noticed the press or opens have been removed (well there were never turned
on anyway) and there are big disabled stickers on the end doors.

Also all the glass looks to be heavily tinted (I think they were anyway on
this stock) so I guess that is the poor man's Air Conditioning fitted :)


Regards



Leo

District Stock
 

Leo Mindel wrote:
Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next to
a
freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to Ealing depot)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one
they
redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two main
things I
noticed the press or opens have been removed (well there were never
turned
on anyway) and there are big disabled stickers on the end doors.


If it was 17002 then isn't it the one they did re-do a few years ago?

District Stock
 

District Stock
 

"Leo Mindel" wrote in message
...
Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next to a
freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to Ealing depot)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one they
redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two main things I
noticed the press or opens have been removed (well there were never turned
on anyway) and there are big disabled stickers on the end doors.


Do you mean the buttons to open the doors ? If I remember correctly these
were used during winter months, but during warmer months train operators
were instructed to open all doors at station stops to help with ventilation.

This is remembering from 3+ years ago when I was last in London, so things
may have changed since then..

Andrew.

District Stock
 

Andrew wrote:

Do you mean the buttons to open the doors ? If I remember correctly
these
were used during winter months, but during warmer months train
operators
were instructed to open all doors at station stops to help with
ventilation.

This is remembering from 3+ years ago when I was last in London, so
things
may have changed since then..

Andrew.

The buttons don't seem to be used at all nowadays. At a normal stop
all the doors open and the button illuminates, at terminals this
happens then the door buttons go off.

Occasionally the drivers do something at the terminals which makes only
one door per carriage stay open, although I don't know what this is but
it keeps it nice and warm

--
Chris

District Stock
 

District Stock
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
wrote:
Leo Mindel wrote:
Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next
to a freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to
Ealing depot)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one
they redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two
main things I noticed the press or opens have been removed (well
there were never turned on anyway) and there are big disabled
stickers on the end doors.

If it was 17002 then isn't it the one they did re-do a few years
ago?

No, that was 17008. 17002 was in the old livery until it went to
Wakefield for refurbishment on 10 Dec 2004.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Does that mean they are finally doing the whole stock ? If so is it similar
to what they did to 17008 ? Do we get Air Con :)

Regards


Leo

District Stock
 

"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Andrew wrote:


Do you mean the buttons to open the doors ? If I remember correctly

these

were used during winter months, but during warmer months train

operators

were instructed to open all doors at station stops to help with

ventilation.

This is remembering from 3+ years ago when I was last in London, so

things

may have changed since then..

Andrew.


The buttons don't seem to be used at all nowadays.

And haven't been for about five years. I remember when I first came to
London (1997) the doors on D stock were passenger-operated in the winter
but always opened during the summer (as Andrew said). After a couple of
summers they just stayed on always-open all year round. I believe a
decision was taken that some pax were being confused by some trains having
doors with buttons that work and some that didn't. And some trains with no
buttons, of course.

I think it may have also had something to do with Health and Safety.

District Stock
 

"Leo Mindel" wrote in message
...

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
wrote:
Leo Mindel wrote:
Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next
to a freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to
Ealing depot)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one
they redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two
main things I noticed the press or opens have been removed (well
there were never turned on anyway) and there are big disabled
stickers on the end doors.

If it was 17002 then isn't it the one they did re-do a few years
ago?

No, that was 17008. 17002 was in the old livery until it went to
Wakefield for refurbishment on 10 Dec 2004.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Does that mean they are finally doing the whole stock ? If so is it
similar to what they did to 17008 ? Do we get Air Con :)

Regards


Leo

For pictures and more info go to:
www.trainweb.org/districtdave

District Stock
 

"Leo Mindel" wrote in message
...
Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next to a
freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to Ealing depot)

It was carriage 17002. From the outside, looks similar to the one they
redid a few years ago, red doors, white and blue trim. Two main things I
noticed the press or opens have been removed (well there were never turned
on anyway) and there are big disabled stickers on the end doors.

Also all the glass looks to be heavily tinted (I think they were anyway on
this stock) so I guess that is the poor man's Air Conditioning fitted :)

I just wish they had chosen a different colour scheme though.

As the indicators on the Wimbledon branch line are often wrong (it will say
its an Edgware Road train when its really a City service and vice versa)
using the different colours was a useful way of telling the "true"
destination very easily.

True, if you travel frequently, you know that the carriage's look different
but it was so much easier to describe to other people ("wait on platform for
a red/blue coloured train" or a "white" train)

However, having travelled on the refurbished new stock, at least it looks
nice inside..

Regards
Sunil

District Stock
 

I think it may have also had something to do with Health and Safety.

I know they're a bunch of simpering lettuces but surely even the HSE
can't think that
confused passengers is a health and safety issue??

B2003

District Stock
 

Travelling in by car earlier this week on the M4 I pulled up next to a

freshly painted D stock on a trailer (I assume going to Ealing depot)

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on
a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will inevitably cause
as it moves
at a snails pace)?

B2003

District Stock
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on
a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will inevitably cause
as it moves
at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are fewer and
fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would you
appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer of London
Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

District Stock
 

Boltar wrote:
I think it may have also had something to do with Health and
Safety.

I know they're a bunch of simpering lettuces but surely even the HSE
can't think that confused passengers is a health and safety issue??

IIRC there was a problem on the Central Line (92 stock has door open and
close buttons) where people were pressing the close button which caused
the doors to close on following passengers and (allegedly) injure them.
I don't know whether in those circumstances the warning note is sounded,
but on 92 stock the doors start to move before the warning sounds, which
isn't helpful. I haven't noticed that it's a problem with NR stock
where door close buttons are provided.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

District Stock
 

Jack Taylor wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on
a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will inevitably
cause
as it moves
at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are
fewer and
fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would you
appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer of
London
Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving
low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on windy B
road?

B2003

District Stock
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving
low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on windy B
road?

You would have thought so - but there are many other factors to take into
consideration also (especially for overnight journeys). For example, train
planning would be involved, in order to roster crews, locomotives and
prepare paths for the movement; the issue (especially overnight) of
engineering work and whether or not signalling centres are open for the
required route (quite a few routes have no overnight cover any more) comes
into the equation. The cost of preparing a train plan and implementing it
may well have made the quoted price to LUL unacceptable and it is far easier
to contract Allelys (or whoever) to do the work. For most of the journeys
major roads and motorways are used for transportation and smaller roads are
only used at the extreme ends of the journey - there is no cost to the
haulier (unless a police escort is required and charged for) for
inconveniencing motorists, whereas Network Rail and the FOCs would factor
such inconvenience into their costs.

District Stock
 

only used at the extreme ends of the journey - there is no cost to the

haulier (unless a police escort is required and charged for) for
nconveniencing motorists, whereas Network Rail and the FOCs would
factor
such inconvenience into their costs.

Yes , I guess you're right. Does seem a bit silly tho. After all, if
you need to
tow a road vehicle somewhere you don't stick it on a train.

Incidentaly , just out of interest , what is the max speed for LUL
stock when
being hauled dead by rail?

B2003

District Stock
 

On 4 Apr 2005, Boltar wrote:


Jack Taylor wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will
inevitably cause as it moves at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are fewer
and fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would
you appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer
of London Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on windy
B road?

You'd think they could at least put it on a swapbody and move *that* by
rail, at a decent speed, in the normal manner of rail freight.

But, as Jack said, they presumably looked into this and found it would be
more expensive. Pretty poor show by rail freight there :(.

tom

--
The ``is'' keyword binds with the same precedence as ``.'', even when it's not actually there. -- Larry Wall, Apocalypse 2

District Stock
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes , I guess you're right. Does seem a bit silly tho. After all, if
you need to tow a road vehicle somewhere you don't stick it on a train.

Incidentaly , just out of interest , what is the max speed for LUL
stock when being hauled dead by rail?

Ah, good question! It depends very much on the brake that can be applied and
the effectiveness of the translator vehicles, plus (I would imagine) whether
the motors are disconnected or not. I'd be surprised if the maximum speed
was very high. IIRC, when the Met line A stock was taken to Derby for
refurbishment (via Amersham, Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Greenford, Reading,
Didcot, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Solihull and Tamworth - quite a circuitous
route) it was limited to a maximum speed of 40mph and moved on a Saturday,
two sets at a time, to reduce the inconvenience to other traffic. I'll have
to check with a mate of mine who was an Acton driver at the time and took
several of the trains through.

District Stock
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005, Boltar wrote:


Jack Taylor wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Whatever happened to moving trains by rail? How can it be easier to
stick it on a low loader (not to mention the traffic chaos is will
inevitably cause as it moves at a snails pace)?

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are
fewer and fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the
country. Would you appreciate your 125mph train being delayed
whilst a 40mph transfer of London Underground stock limped into a
loop ahead of you?

Surely it can be done at night? Besides , how many people does a slow
moving low loader inconvenience , especially if its doing 20mph on
windy B road?

You'd think they could at least put it on a swapbody and move *that*
by rail, at a decent speed, in the normal manner of rail freight.

But, as Jack said, they presumably looked into this and found it
would be more expensive. Pretty poor show by rail freight there :(.


The real cost of moving "dead" rail vehicles is down to Network Rail's
access charges. These are such that even mainline TOCs move locos and other
vehicles by road because it's cheaper. Stupid or what?

District Stock
 

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

The real cost of moving "dead" rail vehicles is down to Network Rail's
access charges. These are such that even mainline TOCs move locos and
other
vehicles by road because it's cheaper. Stupid or what?

Not entirely true. Shunters, maiinline locomotives and stock unfit to move
at line speed without causing delays are moved by road. Most locomotives and
stock fit to be moved at line speed are still moved by rail - for example
the convoys of slam-door Mark I stock being transported weekly to South
Wales or Immingham for scrapping, or the Class 312 units from Pig's Bay.
Only today a convoy of four class 56s have been moved from Immingham to
Healey Mills for continued storage at that location.

District Stock
 

I think further moves will be done by rail. The link between National Rail
and the District Line at Umpinster Depot has been reinstated recently.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

The real cost of moving "dead" rail vehicles is down to Network Rail's
access charges. These are such that even mainline TOCs move locos and
other
vehicles by road because it's cheaper. Stupid or what?

Not entirely true. Shunters, maiinline locomotives and stock unfit to move
at line speed without causing delays are moved by road. Most locomotives
and
stock fit to be moved at line speed are still moved by rail - for example
the convoys of slam-door Mark I stock being transported weekly to South
Wales or Immingham for scrapping, or the Class 312 units from Pig's Bay.
Only today a convoy of four class 56s have been moved from Immingham to
Healey Mills for continued storage at that location.

District Stock
 

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:50:13 GMT, Jack Taylor wrote:

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are fewer and
fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would you
appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer of London
Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

No, which is why I would very much appreciate the reinstatement of some
of the "slow lines" that have disappeared from 1979 onwards, and the
addition of some new ones where practicable.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767288.html
(Gatwick Express, Mark 1: 4VEG unit 7910 at London Victoria in 1980)

District Stock
 

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...

I would very much appreciate the reinstatement of some
of the "slow lines" that have disappeared from 1979 onwards, and the
addition of some new ones where practicable.

Hear, hear! We are repeatedly told that we have a rapidly growing railway,
both in passenger and freight terms, and yet there is complete reluctance to
invest in the infrastructure that will perpetuate the growth (such as the
reinstatement of removed loops, redoubling of singled "slow" lines such as
on the Midland main line and restoration of mothballed diversionary and
secondary routes). The establishment of the SRA has only worsened the
problems - never was the word "strategic" less appropriately used. According
to this month's "Modern Railways" one of the loops on the GWML is the latest
casualty of cutbacks, which will further restrict lower speed movements on
that route.

Unfortunately, since accountants were given carte blanche to take over the
management of British industry we have seen this myopic approach adopted in
many areas, the only figures of interest to these people being the current
year's balance sheet. The sooner that 'broader thinkers' return to the fore
and long-term, joined-up thinking is employed, the better. If the current
mentality had been prominent in the nineteenth century then we wouldn't have
a railway system at all!

District Stock
 

Jack Taylor wrote:

Hear, hear! We are repeatedly told that we have a rapidly
growing railway, both in passenger and freight terms, and
yet there is complete reluctance to invest in the
infrastructure that will perpetuate the growth (such as the
reinstatement of removed loops, redoubling of singled
"slow" lines such as on the Midland main line and
restoration of mothballed diversionary and secondary
routes). The establishment of the SRA has only worsened the
problems - never was the word "strategic" less appropriately
used. According to this month's "Modern Railways" one of
the loops on the GWML is the latest casualty of cutbacks,
which will further restrict lower speed movements on that
route.

Agreed. You would think that MML and GNER would see the sense of
setting up a DBFT, like Evergreen II, to rebuild the missing
infrastructure. While the franchise length may not be enough to recoup
the obvious benefits immediately, if they continued to retain the
franchise they would certainly reap the benefits long-term.


Unfortunately, since accountants were given carte blanche
to take over the management of British industry we have
seen this myopic approach adopted in many areas, the only
figures of interest to these people being the current
year's balance sheet. The sooner that 'broader thinkers'
return to the fore and long-term, joined-up thinking is
employed, the better. If the current mentality had been
prominent in the nineteenth century then we wouldn't have
a railway system at all!

Again, agreed. Fortunately the Chiltern management have repeatedly
demonstrated that they are long-term thinkers, and AFAIK the
accountants have been firmly banished to their cubicles over at Laing
Rail, if Evergreen II is any indication of such.

District Stock
 

TheOneKEA wrote:

While the franchise length may not be enough to recoup
the obvious benefits immediately, if they continued to retain the
franchise they would certainly reap the benefits long-term.


According to SWT (and I assume the rules are the same for all
franchises):

"at the moment, franchising rules prevent a return on the investment
beyond the end of the franchise period"

Source: SWT E-motion magazine, Issue 9 , Page 27, "Why can't you..."

--
Chris