wrote in message
...
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...


Yes - as discussed here in the past, the District renewals towards
Upminster
appear to use identical rail and sleepers to recent NR track renewals -
the
same 'mainline' firms are involved albeit in a Metronet led consortium.
Eventually the whole SSR is supposed to get the same treatment...

What will the sleepers be made of?

Concrete - obviously the fittings for the fourth rail are additional, but
the same rail securing, with pandrol clips, as on the big railway...

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...


Yes - as discussed here in the past, the District renewals towards
Upminster
appear to use identical rail and sleepers to recent NR track renewals -
the
same 'mainline' firms are involved albeit in a Metronet led consortium.
Eventually the whole SSR is supposed to get the same treatment...

What will the sleepers be made of?

Concrete - obviously the fittings for the fourth rail are additional, but
the same rail securing, with pandrol clips, as on the big railway...

I'm no concrete expert but, AIUI, water gets into concrete. This causes the
sleeper to crack and disintegrate. Plastics also don't work out, I
understand, because polymers can start to crack, which could negatively
impact the roadbed.

Are they also planning to upgrade signalling system on the Metropolitan
line?

wrote on 08 April 2009 19:40:50 ...
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

Yes - as discussed here in the past, the District renewals towards
Upminster appear to use identical rail and sleepers to recent NR
track renewals - the same 'mainline' firms are involved albeit in a
Metronet led consortium.
Eventually the whole SSR is supposed to get the same treatment...

What will the sleepers be made of?

Concrete - obviously the fittings for the fourth rail are additional, but
the same rail securing, with pandrol clips, as on the big railway...

I'm no concrete expert but, AIUI, water gets into concrete. This causes the
sleeper to crack and disintegrate.

Really? Perhaps you should inform railway companies throughout the
world about that, given that concrete is by far the most common material
for new sleepers. Don't you ever look at the track?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
m...
wrote on 08 April 2009 19:40:50 ...
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

Yes - as discussed here in the past, the District renewals towards
Upminster appear to use identical rail and sleepers to recent NR track
renewals - the same 'mainline' firms are involved albeit in a
Metronet led consortium.
Eventually the whole SSR is supposed to get the same treatment...

What will the sleepers be made of?

Concrete - obviously the fittings for the fourth rail are additional,
but the same rail securing, with pandrol clips, as on the big railway...

I'm no concrete expert but, AIUI, water gets into concrete. This causes
the sleeper to crack and disintegrate.

Really? Perhaps you should inform railway companies throughout the world
about that, given that concrete is by far the most common material for new
sleepers. Don't you ever look at the track?
--
Concrete does allow for higher speeds.

wrote in message


Are they also planning to upgrade signalling system on the
Metropolitan line?

Long story... Metronet was planning to, but the contract was cancelled
after it went bust. It's still likely to happen, but a few more years
into the future, and using a different system (thank goodness!). TfL
isn't exactly flush with investment funds thse days.

Recliner wrote:
wrote in message


Are they also planning to upgrade signalling system on the
Metropolitan line?

Long story... Metronet was planning to, but the contract was cancelled
after it went bust. It's still likely to happen, but a few more years
into the future, and using a different system (thank goodness!). TfL
isn't exactly flush with investment funds thse days.

The fun bit will be if the proposed ATP system (originally proposed to
be the latest revision of SELCAB, I believe) *isn't* backwards
compatible with that fitted to the Chiltern Railways fleet.

Picture the scene: First train after resignalling gets to Harrow South
Junction or Mantles Wood and the ATP equipment picks up a "foreign"
signal that it doesn't understand and decides to sit down and sulk.

Cheers,

Barry

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:58:36 +0100
Barry Salter wrote:


Recliner wrote:
wrote in message


Are they also planning to upgrade signalling system on the
Metropolitan line?

Long story... Metronet was planning to, but the contract was cancelled
after it went bust. It's still likely to happen, but a few more years
into the future, and using a different system (thank goodness!). TfL
isn't exactly flush with investment funds thse days.

The fun bit will be if the proposed ATP system (originally proposed to
be the latest revision of SELCAB, I believe) *isn't* backwards
compatible with that fitted to the Chiltern Railways fleet.

Wouldn't this new system have to be fitted not just to the met but the
H&C, circle and district too if they want the S stock to be interchangable
on all lines? Or will we be back to the old situation of certain trains only
being able to run on certain lines because someone in times past had bugger
all common sense (A stock being too wide for parts of the district line for
example)?

B2003

On Apr 9, 9:49*am, wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:58:36 +0100



Barry Salter wrote:

Recliner wrote:
wrote in message


Are they also planning to upgrade signalling system on the
Metropolitan line?

Long story... *Metronet was planning to, but the contract was cancelled
after it went bust. It's still likely to happen, but a few more years
into the future, and using a different system (thank goodness!). TfL
isn't exactly flush with investment funds thse days.

The fun bit will be if the proposed ATP system (originally proposed to
be the latest revision of SELCAB, I believe) *isn't* backwards
compatible with that fitted to the Chiltern Railways fleet.

Wouldn't this new system have to be fitted not just to the met but the
H&C, circle and district too if they want the S stock to be interchangable
on all lines? Or will we be back to the old situation of certain trains only
being able to run on certain lines because someone in times past had bugger
all common sense (A stock being too wide for parts of the district line for
example)?

Yes, of course the new system is being fitted to the whole SSL.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

wrote in message

On Apr 9, 9:49 am, wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:58:36 +0100



Barry Salter wrote:

Recliner wrote:
wrote in message


Are they also planning to upgrade signalling system on the
Metropolitan line?

Long story... Metronet was planning to, but the contract was
cancelled after it went bust. It's still likely to happen, but a
few more years into the future, and using a different system
(thank goodness!). TfL isn't exactly flush with investment funds
thse days.

The fun bit will be if the proposed ATP system (originally proposed
to be the latest revision of SELCAB, I believe) *isn't* backwards
compatible with that fitted to the Chiltern Railways fleet.

Wouldn't this new system have to be fitted not just to the met but
the
H&C, circle and district too if they want the S stock to be
interchangable on all lines? Or will we be back to the old situation
of certain trains only being able to run on certain lines because
someone in times past had bugger all common sense (A stock being too
wide for parts of the district line for example)?

Yes, of course the new system is being fitted to the whole SSL.

Indeed so, but the original Metronet plan was to use a different system
to that planned by Tubelines for the Northern, Picc and Jubilee lines.
Given that the Picc shares tracks with the Met and District, this could
have caused real chaos at Ealing Common and Rayner's lane, as well as
round Wembley Park.