Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In the wikipedia article about the new 2009 stock for the victoria
line I came across this: "The trains will have eight cars, with seating for 252 and standing space for an estimated 1196 passengers. Unlike the 1967 stock, the trains will be built to take advantage of the Victoria Line's unusually large loading gauge (for a deep tube line). This will prevent them leaving the line except by road, however." Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? B2003 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote:
In the wikipedia article about the new 2009 stock for the victoria line I came across this: "The trains will have eight cars, with seating for 252 and standing space for an estimated 1196 passengers. Unlike the 1967 stock, the trains will be built to take advantage of the Victoria Line's unusually large loading gauge (for a deep tube line). This will prevent them leaving the line except by road, however." Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? B2003 Was this added to Wikipedia on 1 April? I would have thought that the platform edges would be a limitation in any case, even if the tunnels are slightly wider. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 9, 4:27 pm, MIG wrote:
Was this added to Wikipedia on 1 April? Didn't check , wouldn't surprise me. I would have thought that the platform edges would be a limitation in any case, even if the tunnels are slightly wider. Good point, hadn't thought of that. B2003 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote:
Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a few feet longer. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 9, 5:57*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote: Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a few feet longer. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line. Ah, so is it maybe more to do with the tightness of bends rather than the width? Would the 1973 stock already not be able to get round, say, the Bakerloo, which is very bendy? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
, Mr Thant writes Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a few feet longer. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line. Clearing the South Kensington S-bend would presumably be the main hurdle. -- Paul Terry |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: On Apr 9, 5:57*pm, Mr Thant wrote: On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote: Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a few feet longer. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line. How silly to build a train that can't be moved on to another line for whatever reason. I had no appreciation that this nonsense had been sneaked through. Ah, so is it maybe more to do with the tightness of bends rather than the width? Would the 1973 stock already not be able to get round, say, the Bakerloo, which is very bendy? Don't know about the Bakerloo line but the 73 stock had a tight squeeze when they first put a unit through the Picc Line. The twists and turns at South Ken caused some problems apparently. Adjustments to the car ends had to be made so I am told. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9 Apr, 19:47, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On Apr 9, 5:57 pm, Mr Thant wrote: On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote: Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a few feet longer. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line. How silly to build a train that can't be moved on to another line for whatever reason. I had no appreciation that this nonsense had been sneaked through. This television news report on the new stock suggests that any extra space will be put to good use for the benefit of passengers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5BvJa5DwqQ Anyway the later pages of this thread on District Dave suggests that the Vic line stock will be delivered by rail to Ruislip depot and will then run via the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines to reach the Victoria line, and also that there have already been gauging test runs to determine if this route will be possible (see in particular the third post down by 'towerman'): http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...976388&page=10 So if this goes to plan the trains might not be able to run on other tube lines in service (though really why would they need to?) but it will be possible to move them by rail on and off the network. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 9, 8:41*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 19:47, Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On Apr 9, 5:57 pm, Mr Thant wrote: On 9 Apr, 15:47, Boltar wrote: Is this true? It seems a strange thing to do. If it is , how much larger are they? Yes, it's true. They're a couple of inches taller and each train is a few feet longer. Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line. How silly to build a train that can't be moved on to another line for whatever reason. *I had no appreciation that this nonsense had been sneaked through. This television news report on the new stock suggests that any extra space will be put to good use for the benefit of passengers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5BvJa5DwqQ Nah, they'll just keep making the walls thicker and thicker. Honestly, why must modern trains have four-inch thick hollow walls? Thin, space-maximising walls with no poky-into-your-arm ledges are attractive features of both A stock and Desiros. Anyway the later pages of this thread on District Dave suggests that the Vic line stock will be delivered by rail to Ruislip depot and will then run via the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines to reach the Victoria line, and also that there have already been gauging test runs to determine if this route will be possible (see in particular the third post down by 'towerman'): http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...ictoria&action... So if this goes to plan the trains might not be able to run on other tube lines in service (though really why would they need to?) but it will be possible to move them by rail on and off the network. When you look at the way the 1972 stock got shunted around (and mixed with 1967 stock), and the way the 1938, 1959 and 1962 stock also got moved around and reformed, it does seem as if all kinds of options for for future cascades have been ruled out. Or ... could they end up being cascaded to a sub-surface line at some point in the future (the only other place they'll fit)? |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:41:13 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: Anyway the later pages of this thread on District Dave suggests that the Vic line stock will be delivered by rail to Ruislip depot and will then run via the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines to reach the Victoria line, and also that there have already been gauging test runs to determine if this route will be possible (see in particular the third post down by 'towerman'): http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...976388&page=10 So if this goes to plan the trains might not be able to run on other tube lines in service (though really why would they need to?) but it will be possible to move them by rail on and off the network. If that's correct then fine. The ability to move them about in non passenger service if / when needed is the main thing. I just think it is daft to move trains by road when it's perfectly sensible to shift them by rail if at all possible. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock? | London Transport | |||
Loading gauge question | London Transport | |||
CTRL loading gauge | London Transport | |||
Loading gauge | London Transport | |||
LUL track gauge not the same as BR gauge? | London Transport |