On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:31:19 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Most of the compromise height locations have subsurface trains on one
track and tube trains on the other -- if one of the tracks were raised a
bit and the other lowered, the problem would be largely solved (except
when trains are rerouted to the other track). But that still leaves
Uxbridge through Rayners Lane and Ealing Common.

And Acton Town, where Piccadilly Line trains use all four platforms.

James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:31:19 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Most of the compromise height locations have subsurface trains on one
track and tube trains on the other -- if one of the tracks were raised a
bit and the other lowered, the problem would be largely solved (except
when trains are rerouted to the other track). But that still leaves
Uxbridge through Rayners Lane and Ealing Common.

And Acton Town, where Piccadilly Line trains use all four platforms.

Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line trains
really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing so can reduce
delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton Town, but it
doesn't actually speed up train service much, does it? One train still
has to wait for the other before leaving the station. I suppose the
practice is useful when the Rayners Lane shuttle is running -- but when
that happened to me, the connecting Piccadilly line train across the
platform closed up and pulled out as soon as we pulled in. (It felt
just like home!)

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park
and Harrow & Wealdstone. I don't remember exactly what the floor height
of those trains is, but it's obviously not the same as both District and
Bakerloo trains. (Silverlink Metro runs Class 313 stock on all of its
electrified routes, right?)
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On 18 Mar, 19:02, David of Broadway
wrote:
Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line trains
really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing so can reduce
delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton Town, but it
doesn't actually speed up train service much, does it? One train still
has to wait for the other before leaving the station. I suppose the
practice is useful when the Rayners Lane shuttle is running -- but when
that happened to me, the connecting Piccadilly line train across the
platform closed up and pulled out as soon as we pulled in. (It felt
just like home!)

The S Stock (to be used on all non-tube lines) will be low floor, so
this problem goes away by itself once you rebuild all platforms to
tube height.

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park
and Harrow & Wealdstone.

Don't forget that one day the Bakerloo will take over the whole route
to Watford.

(Silverlink Metro runs Class 313 stock on all of its
electrified routes, right?)

Yes, and the odd 508, which are roughly the same design. High floor.

U

wrote:
On 18 Mar, 19:02, David of Broadway
wrote:
Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line
trains really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing
so can reduce delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton
Town, but it doesn't actually speed up train service much, does
it? One train still has to wait for the other before leaving the
station. I suppose the practice is useful when the Rayners Lane
shuttle is running -- but when that happened to me, the connecting
Piccadilly line train across the platform closed up and pulled out
as soon as we pulled in. (It felt just like home!)

The S Stock (to be used on all non-tube lines) will be low floor, so
this problem goes away by itself once you rebuild all platforms to
tube height.

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock floors
will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock
floors will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all platforms
are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow northwards are shared with
standard gauge overground stock (Chiltern)? Utter rubbish IMO.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock
floors will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all platforms
are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow northwards are shared with
standard gauge overground stock (Chiltern)? Utter rubbish IMO.

The S stock floor height will be a bit lower than the old surface stock, but
not as low as tube stock.

The S stock floor height will apparently be 950mm above rail height,
compared with the existing surface stock height of 975 or 980mm. Tube stock
is 600 or 610mm above rail height.
--
David Biddulph

In article , groups [at]
biddulph.org.uk (David Biddulph) wrote:

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate
the two heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to
be a compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock
would be unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that
S stock floors will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's

true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all
platforms are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow
northwards are shared with standard gauge overground stock
(Chiltern)? Utter rubbish IMO.

The S stock floor height will be a bit lower than the old surface
stock, but not as low as tube stock.

The S stock floor height will apparently be 950mm above rail
height, compared with the existing surface stock height of 975 or
980mm. Tube stock is 600 or 610mm above rail height.

This would make more sense if we knew the standard platform height above
rail level. I have a feeling it is more like 950 than 980 mm

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Jack Taylor wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock floors
will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all platforms
are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow northwards are shared with
standard gauge overground stock (Chiltern)?

Kneeling suspension?

tom

--
Destroy - kill all hippies.

On 18 Mar, 22:55, "Richard J." wrote:
Anyway, where does it say that S stock floors will be at tube stock height?

There's a guy on the District Dave boards called pjrb who does a
pretty convincing job of claiming to be one of the guys working on the
S stock.

He mentions low floors here, although on reflection, he doesn't
mention tube height:
http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...e=1#1158424908

U

On Mar 19, 12:57 pm, "Mr Thant"
wrote:
There's a guy on the District Dave boards called pjrb who does a
pretty convincing job of claiming to be one of the guys working on the
S stock.

I would imagine so, seeing as how he is actually one of the people in
charge of the project...