2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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?

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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!

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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)?

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

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!

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message



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.

Isn't it already increasingly the case that stocks can only work on
their 'home' lines? For example, I think the 1992 stock can't be used
on any but the central lines and vice versa. I know the 1995 and 1996
stocks aren't compatible, though I don't know if they could work on each
other's lines. Apart from the physical dimensions, the signalling isn't
mutually compatible.

But at least the S stock will be the first sub-surface stock in a long
time that can work on any of the sub-surface lines (though the 8-car Met
trains won't fit into some Circle line platforms).

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 9 Apr, 21:43, Paul Corfield wrote:
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.

Especially since it'll prevent even more bottlenecks on clogged up
roads in that part of tottenham anyway. Unless they move them at 2am
or something.

B2003

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 9 Apr, 21:18, MIG wrote:
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.

Not to mention plenty of other trains on other metro systems such as
New York. It seems new train interiors in this country whether LU or
national rail seem to have a sort of pseudo nursery school look with
big chunky fittings everywhere. If Fischer Price were ever to design
train interiors they'd probably get a lot of business from the UK rail
industry.

B2003

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, 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.

My understanding, based on things i've read about the JLE, is that the
speed at which a train can run is limited in part by the clearance between
the train and the tunnel wall - for aerodynamic as much as kinematic
reasons. Does this mean that the new obese Vic trains won't go as fast?

Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

tom

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 9 Apr, 21:43, Paul Corfield wrote:

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/...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.

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.


I couldn't agree more with your thoughts.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

A lack of suitable traction power might hamper any bid for freedom...
(unless dragged)

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, 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.

My understanding, based on things i've read about the JLE, is that the
speed at which a train can run is limited in part by the clearance between
the train and the tunnel wall - for aerodynamic as much as kinematic
reasons. Does this mean that the new obese Vic trains won't go as fast?


I thought one of the main benefits of the larger diameter the JLE
tunnels was that of ventilation and keeping the whole thing cooler?



Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.


No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

I don't think there'd be any problem finding the space to fit in a
connection, but I suppose it just wouldn't be worth the cost - easier
and cheaper to sort out any problems in the Piccadilly line tunnels to
allow these new Vic trains to pass through them en-route to the
Northumberland Park depot (see my post upthread which suggests that
the new stock *will* in fact be delivered by rail, not road).

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't
know if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

Since the depot was previously a rail depot of some sort, the connection
must actually have been taken out when the Vic was built.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Apr 10, 12:16 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, 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.

My understanding, based on things i've read about the JLE, is that the
speed at which a train can run is limited in part by the clearance between
the train and the tunnel wall - for aerodynamic as much as kinematic
reasons. Does this mean that the new obese Vic trains won't go as fast?

I thought one of the main benefits of the larger diameter the JLE
tunnels was that of ventilation and keeping the whole thing cooler?



Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

I don't think there'd be any problem finding the space to fit in a
connection, but I suppose it just wouldn't be worth the cost - easier
and cheaper to sort out any problems in the Piccadilly line tunnels to
allow these new Vic trains to pass through them en-route to the
Northumberland Park depot (see my post upthread which suggests that
the new stock *will* in fact be delivered by rail, not road).

Trials were carried out a few months back after close of traffic with
a 67TS with polystyrene strips on running on the Piccadilly to
Finsbury Park Victoria. I don't know the outcome though!

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 10 Apr, 10:06, chunky munky wrote:

On Apr 10, 12:16 am, Mizter T wrote:

On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

(snip)

Trains rarely need to leave their home line, though I have heard talk of
seeing if they can be squeezed down the Piccadilly Line.

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been. I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

I don't think there'd be any problem finding the space to fit in a
connection, but I suppose it just wouldn't be worth the cost - easier
and cheaper to sort out any problems in the Piccadilly line tunnels to
allow these new Vic trains to pass through them en-route to the
Northumberland Park depot (see my post upthread which suggests that
the new stock *will* in fact be delivered by rail, not road).

Trials were carried out a few months back after close of traffic with
a 67TS with polystyrene strips on running on the Piccadilly to
Finsbury Park Victoria. I don't know the outcome though!


Have any Piccadilly line regulars seen a blizzard of polystyrene
flakes recently me wonders?!

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

chunky munky wrote:

Trials were carried out a few months back after close of traffic with
a 67TS with polystyrene strips on running on the Piccadilly to
Finsbury Park Victoria. I don't know the outcome though!

How primitive. Just because a train fits through once doesn't mean it will
fit through every time, especially with varying numbers of passengers in
varying distributions, and the new trains will have different suspension to
the old ones anyway. Has LU not heard of lasers and proximity sensors and
computer modelling?

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Apr 10, 12:23 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
How primitive. Just because a train fits through once doesn't mean it will
fit through every time, especially with varying numbers of passengers in
varying distributions, and the new trains will have different suspension to
the old ones anyway. Has LU not heard of lasers and proximity sensors and
computer modelling?

But they're not going to run in passenger service on the piccadilly
and no doubt they'll be driven slowly anyway on the curvy bits.

I still fail to understand why they've given themselves this much
grief for a few inches of extra headroom. Its not vertical height
thats needed since anyone under about 6'2 doesn't have any problems
standing up anyway in a tube train , its greater width thats needed so
theres more room to move - or more room to squeeze more people in -
but I din't think an inch here or there would make a lot of difference
to that.

B2003

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 10 Apr, 12:23, "John Rowland"
wrote:

chunky munky wrote:

Trials were carried out a few months back after close of traffic with
a 67TS with polystyrene strips on running on the Piccadilly to
Finsbury Park Victoria. I don't know the outcome though!

How primitive. Just because a train fits through once doesn't mean it will
fit through every time, especially with varying numbers of passengers in
varying distributions, and the new trains will have different suspension to
the old ones anyway. Has LU not heard of lasers and proximity sensors and
computer modelling?

These trials were to determine whether the 09TS would fit through the
Piccadilly tubes *not-in-service* - i.e. for the purpose of the new
trains being delivered.

Regarding computer modelling - I'm sure the people on the ground would
want to actually see a gauging trial run successful completed in
reality. Models are models and aren't the real thing.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 10 Apr, 12:33, Boltar wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:23 pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
How primitive. Just because a train fits through once doesn't mean it will
fit through every time, especially with varying numbers of passengers in
varying distributions, and the new trains will have different suspension to
the old ones anyway. Has LU not heard of lasers and proximity sensors and
computer modelling?

But they're not going to run in passenger service on the piccadilly
and no doubt they'll be driven slowly anyway on the curvy bits.

I still fail to understand why they've given themselves this much
grief for a few inches of extra headroom. Its not vertical height
thats needed since anyone under about 6'2 doesn't have any problems
standing up anyway in a tube train , its greater width thats needed so
theres more room to move - or more room to squeeze more people in -
but I din't think an inch here or there would make a lot of difference
to that.


I think the new carriages are fitted with air fans (to assist in
circulating the air better) which takes up space.

If the new stock fits through the Piccadilly line then they haven't
really given themselves any extra grief, apart perhaps from just
having to drive the trains slowly through the Picc line tunnels. Given
that this isn't going to be a regular event then there's not really a
problem.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Apr, 22:13, Tom Anderson wrote:

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't
know if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

No connection whatsoever, nor am I aware that there ever has been.
I'm
curious as to whether there were ever any suggestions of putting in a
connection when the line was being planned?

Since the depot was previously a rail depot of some sort, the
connection must actually have been taken out when the Vic was
built.

There was a rail connection at Northumberland Park that was removed after
the depot was built. I have a feeling that most of the Victoria Line
stock was delivered over the connection.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Q wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Is there a connection to the West Anglia at Northumberland Park?
Presumably, even a chubby tube train is smaller than NR gauge. Don't know
if you could run to anywhere useful from there, though.

A lack of suitable traction power might hamper any bid for freedom...
(unless dragged)

I have invented a folding pantograph which sellotapes on the front of the
tube train.

tom

--
Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love!

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

I have invented a folding pantograph which sellotapes on the front of the
tube train.

Hmm ok. so that's the pan sorted, what about the switch gear, transformers
and the rest of the traction package :p

See now I have visions of a lil train making a bid for freedom and turning
up at LST one day as my train home!

heh

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:33:41AM -0700, Boltar wrote:

Its not vertical height
thats needed since anyone under about 6'2 doesn't have any problems
standing up anyway in a tube train

And damn anyone who's 6'2" or taller, eh? There are a *lot* of us, but
I suppose our comfort doesn't matter to you.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and,
if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:33:41AM -0700, Boltar wrote:

thats needed since anyone under about 6'2 doesn't have any problems
standing up anyway in a tube train

And damn anyone who's 6'2" or taller, eh? There are a *lot* of us,

Fewer than 10% of the male population, i think.

but I suppose our comfort doesn't matter to you.

Nope. You guys get all the girls, and earn more, so bloody sod you! :)

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On 11 Apr, 13:09, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:33:41AM -0700, Boltar wrote:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Its not vertical height
thats needed since anyone under about 6'2 doesn't have any problems
standing up anyway in a tube train

And damn anyone who's 6'2" or taller, eh? *There are a *lot* of us, but
I suppose our comfort doesn't matter to you.

Recent LU designs don't even accommodate people who have a top half to
their body (eg the perching cushions on the Jubilee directly below the
emergency call thing, so there is nowhere for your body to go, but
there would have been if there was a seat).

It would be inconsistent for them to start taking into account any
kind of human body shape now.

2009 Stock loading gauge
 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Q wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

I have invented a folding pantograph which sellotapes on the front of the
tube train.

Hmm ok. so that's the pan sorted, what about the switch gear, transformers
and the rest of the traction package :p

Ah, a diode to rectify, a capacitor to smooth it out a bit, and a resistor
to dump most of the voltage, then you just put 750 V into the existing
traction system. Problem solved!

See now I have visions of a lil train making a bid for freedom and
turning up at LST one day as my train home!

The next step is to cut down a diesel powerpack enough to get it through
the doors, then we're off to Bristol ...

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7