(Boltar) wrote in message om...
Something I was wondering the other day , when the extension to Heathrow
airport was built why didn't they re-extend the district line to Hounslow
and beyond and divert the piccadilly to ealing? Why? Because district trains
are much bigger and so they would have been much more room for passengers
and their luggage rather than the pokey little tube trains on the picc.

Was there a good reason for not doing this given the benefits it would have
entailed for passengers with luggage?

B2003

No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train
thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and
WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does
not.
Johnny Mo

"Johnny Mo" wrote in message
om
(Boltar) wrote in message
om...
Something I was wondering the other day , when the extension to
Heathrow airport was built why didn't they re-extend the district
line to Hounslow and beyond and divert the piccadilly to ealing?
Why? Because district trains are much bigger and so they would have
been much more room for passengers and their luggage rather than the
pokey little tube trains on the picc.

Was there a good reason for not doing this given the benefits it
would have entailed for passengers with luggage?

B2003

No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train
thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and
WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does
not.

Inter-car movement on the D stock seems no harder than on Tube stock, so is
that just a question of carrying a (longer) ramp in the cab? Presumably the
fire resistance is much the same in all UG stock.

"Johnny Mo" wrote in message
om...
(Boltar) wrote in message
om...
Something I was wondering the other day , when the extension to Heathrow
airport was built why didn't they re-extend the district line to
Hounslow
and beyond and divert the piccadilly to ealing? Why? Because district
trains
are much bigger and so they would have been much more room for
passengers
and their luggage rather than the pokey little tube trains on the picc.

Was there a good reason for not doing this given the benefits it would
have
entailed for passengers with luggage?

B2003

No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train
thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and
WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does
not.
Johnny Mo

I think the op meant when the track and tunnels were made, why not make them
bigger and send the bigger surface stock to the airport. IIRC 313's have
doors on the front of the cab. All underground stocks have steps or ramps to
help detrain onto track level.

Nigel Pendse wrote:
"Johnny Mo" wrote in message
om

No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train
thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and
WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does
not.

Inter-car movement on the D stock seems no harder than on Tube stock,
so is that just a question of carrying a (longer) ramp in the cab?
Presumably the fire resistance is much the same in all UG stock.

The District's D stock is the only one that still has wooden floors. Hence
they still carry fire extinguishers in the passenger areas, whereas some
more modern (or refurbished) types don't.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message

Nigel Pendse wrote:
"Johnny Mo" wrote in message
om

No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district
train thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet.
Tube (and WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface
stock does not.

Inter-car movement on the D stock seems no harder than on Tube stock,
so is that just a question of carrying a (longer) ramp in the cab?
Presumably the fire resistance is much the same in all UG stock.

The District's D stock is the only one that still has wooden floors.
Hence they still carry fire extinguishers in the passenger areas,
whereas some more modern (or refurbished) types don't.

That's true now, but when this decision was made in the 1970s, all LU stock
had wooden slatted floors.

"Rob" wrote in message ...
"Johnny Mo" wrote in message
om...
(Boltar) wrote in message
om...
Something I was wondering the other day , when the extension to Heathrow
airport was built why didn't they re-extend the district line to
Hounslow
and beyond and divert the piccadilly to ealing? Why? Because district
trains
are much bigger and so they would have been much more room for
passengers
and their luggage rather than the pokey little tube trains on the picc.

Was there a good reason for not doing this given the benefits it would
have
entailed for passengers with luggage?

B2003

No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train
thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and
WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does
not.
Johnny Mo

I think the op meant when the track and tunnels were made, why not make them
bigger and send the bigger surface stock to the airport. IIRC 313's have
doors on the front of the cab. All underground stocks have steps or ramps to
help detrain onto track level.

In response to putting two more tracks in, and like I said it would
cost money, between northfields and osterly it would involve a
widening of the viaduct and a bridge and there's space otherwise.
After that removing the cutting and having just concrete walls would
make space, then obviously some property purchasing as well. I said
that would be my preference, not that it would be possible. I
overlooked the HSE stuff as well.

(Johnny Mo) wrote in message . com...
No one has yet noted there are legal differences between sub-surface
stock ( district line) and tube stock (picc). To put a district train
thru a single bore tunnel would require a whole new fleet. Tube (and
WAGN class 313) need lengthwise evacuation, sub-surface stock does
not.

But what about places where surface stock runs through single bore tunnel
such as under the river on the east london line and at earls court?

B2003

In article ,
(Dr. Sunil) wrote:

If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site
with this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is
only about 9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side ,
not a whole hell of a lot really.

sorry for the length!

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...9224642.31224A
-100000%40biochem.bc.ic.ac.uk&output=gplain

Why don't people look these things up in the standard sources? Hardy (2002
edition) has this table (I've left out the lengths):

(mm)
Stock Width Height
1967 2642 2877
1972 2642 2877
1973 2630 2880
1992 2620 2869
1995 2630 2875
1996 2630 2875
A60/62 2946 3689
C69/77 2920 3687
D 2850 3620

Glover's Ian Allan London Underground (1997) has similar dimensions and
those for the 1983 stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Dr. Sunil) wrote:

If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site
with this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock
is only about 9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a
side , not a whole hell of a lot really.

sorry for the length!

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...9224642.31224A
-100000%40biochem.bc.ic.ac.uk&output=gplain

Why don't people look these things up in the standard sources?

Just possibly, because they don't own them. Anyway, why do you regard
"Hardy" and "Glover's Ian Allan London Underground" as standard sources, but
not 'Motive Power Recognition: 4, London Transport Railways and PTE Systems'
by John Glover and Colin J. Marsden (as quoted by Sunil)?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Why don't people look these things up in the standard sources?

Just possibly, because they don't own them. Anyway, why do you regard
"Hardy" and "Glover's Ian Allan London Underground" as standard
sources, but not 'Motive Power Recognition: 4, London Transport Railways
and PTE Systems' by John Glover and Colin J. Marsden (as quoted by
Sunil)?

Probably because my edition is dated 1985. I can't say I've noticed a more
recent edition either, to be honest. The 1985 edition has all dimensions
in imperial units, even for stock built to metric standards.

I've always found Hardy's work the most comprehensive and well-informed
source on London Underground Rolling Stock, a lifetime interest of mine.
However, only his latest edition seems to have stock dimensions in. The
previous two didn't.

--
Colin Rosenstiel