On Aug 12, 10:19 pm, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:23:18 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"

wrote:

A recent report says that it is worth spending up to £10,000 to turn just
one person into a regular cyclist.

A report written by cycling enthusiasts, no doubt.

An economics consultancy in Edinburgh, written by a non-cyclist who
was very surprised by the result.
Tim

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:26:30AM +0100, Recliner wrote:

True, but the new Victoria line trains are longer, faster and more
frequent, so that may account for some of the extra power.

Longer? When did the platforms get lengthened then?

The new Victoria line trains will be the longest on the LU network,
until the even longer new 8-car S stock trains enter service. Presumably
they just stop further into the tunnels.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 03:13:06PM +0000, Adrian wrote:

And why can't these Londoners use the superb public transport in place
across the city, for an even bigger benefit?

We do, except that not all our journeys are in London or to places with
convenient public transport. Something like half the cars parked on my
road seem to be used only at weekends.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.

"Andy" wrote in message


The 'class' date of underground stock used to be the year of the
order, not the year of entry into service, the 2009 stock breaks this
'rule' but I think it applies to most of the other tube stock classes.

No it wasn't the date of the order, which was usually years earlier. I
think it was the earliest anticipated date of entry into service, but
the actual dates often slipped by a year or two.

So, for example, the 1959, A60 and 1972 stocks really did enter service
in their nominal years, but the 1973 stock didn't enter service until
1975 and the 1992 stock in 1993. By introducing the single late night
train into passenger service, posterity will record that the 2009 stock
entered service on time.

David Cantrell gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

And why can't these Londoners use the superb public transport in place
across the city, for an even bigger benefit?

We do, except that not all our journeys are in London or to places with
convenient public transport. Something like half the cars parked on my
road seem to be used only at weekends.

Indeed.

So Bruce's comments on provision of workplace recharging are irrelevant,
but the "one-shot" range is highly relevant.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:35:45PM -0700, allanbonnetracy wrote:

Aren=92t the vast majority of car journeys less than three miles or
something like that?

For journeys of such short length, cycling is an entirely viable
alternative.

There's the small problem that while I can leave my car unattended on
the street it doesn't get stolen, because it's too heavy to lift and is
easily traceable, while if I were to leave a bike unattended on the
street, it would be. And there's nowhere else to leave it, because I,
like an awful lot of people, live in a small flat.

Cycling is *not* a viable alternative for an awful lot of people.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Hail Caesar! Those about to vi ^[ you!

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
u
"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 13 Aug, 09:51, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:40:33 +0100

Paul Corfield wrote:

If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly
line tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much
difference between
09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way
or the other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to
equipment?

Did it arrive that way? I thought it was delivered by road rather
than rail and then across the tube network. I'd genuinely like to
know the answer to this so if anyone can point me at the facts it'd
be good.

Thats what people on here were saying. I've no idea if its true. But
it occured to me that the victoria line uses an old piccadilly line
tunnel on the northbound at finsbury park and I very much doubt they
would have bothered to spend a fortune to enlarge it by a few inches
so as 09 stock has to fit through it must be pretty close to
standard tube gauge. B2003

Isn't it more to do with the bends rather than the diameter?



AIUI, the '09 units on test were road delivered. They are out of
gauge for other tube lines (we're talking maybe 20-25mm) with the
appropriate kinematic envelope for operational speeds. I suspect they
could be crawled through tight spots if the need arose. Current
practice (as distinct from past LT practice) would suggest little if
any need for through operation on other lines, and no plans to
"cascade" stock.
Finsbury Park was extensively remodelled to provide UP-UP and
DOWN-DOWN train flows and cross platform interchanges between Picc
and Vic. It replaced the previous layout which provided for
terminating GN&C trains of "main line" loading gauge. The line of the
Victoria route means that little if any old Piccadilly running tunnel
remains in use as such. As the Vic has just been going through a
rebuild from the track up, any minor structure gauge anolomies would
have been dealt with.

The ever-reliable Wiki source says that the 2009 stock is 2.68m wide and
the 1973 stock 2.629, so the 2009 stock is apparently 5cm or 2" wider.
It also says that, "Unlike the 1967 Tube Stock, the trains are built 40
millimetres (1.6 in) wider to take advantage of the Victoria line's
slightly larger than normal loading gauge compared to the other deep
level tube lines."

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:36:02 +0800
"DW downunder" noname wrote:
AIUI, the '09 units on test were road delivered. They are out of gauge for
other tube lines (we're talking maybe 20-25mm) with the appropriate

Makes you wonder why they bothered. An extra centimeter of space either side
of the carraige (assuming its not taken up by fittings) which will make
almost zero noticable difference to passenger comfort, against being able
to haul or even use the trains anywhere on the network in the future.

"main line" loading gauge. The line of the Victoria route means that little
if any old Piccadilly running tunnel remains in use as such. As the Vic has

Quite a lot remains in use from what I've seen. When you're going north
towards finsbury on the victoria watch out for the tunnel lining to change
from concrete to iron and get slightly narrower in the process. There must
be a good few hundred metres of the old piccadilly line tunnel still in
use.

just been going through a rebuild from the track up, any minor structure
gauge anolomies would have been dealt with.

You can lower the track but its a bit more difficult to widen the tunnel or
straighten it out.

B2003

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:26:30AM +0100, Recliner wrote:

True, but the new Victoria line trains are longer, faster and more
frequent, so that may account for some of the extra power.

Longer? When did the platforms get lengthened then?

The new Victoria line trains will be the longest on the LU network, until
the even longer new 8-car S stock trains enter service. Presumably they
just stop further into the tunnels.


But maybe answer the question: The '09 stock is longer than the 67 stock
because the revised ATO is setup for a higher stopping accuracy. That means
that more of the available platform is actually used, hence longer trains -
not longer platforms. [BTW, as the trains are in tunnel all the time they
carry pax, "... stop further into the tunnels ... " is a statement rather
lacking in points of reference.] Also, elimination of intermediate driving
cabs increases the total amount of space in the train made available to pax.

DW down under

On 13 Aug, 12:00, "Recliner" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message



The 'class' date of underground stock used to be the year of the
order, not the year of entry into service, the 2009 stock breaks this
'rule' but I think it applies to most of the other tube stock classes.

No it wasn't the date of the order, which was usually years earlier. I
think it was the earliest anticipated date of entry into service, but
the actual dates often slipped by a year or two.

So, for example, the 1959, A60 and 1972 stocks really did enter service
in their nominal years, but the 1973 stock didn't enter service until
1975 and the 1992 stock in 1993. By introducing the single late night
train into passenger service, posterity will record that the 2009 stock
entered service on time.

Whoops, I didn't properly proof read my reply. I meant to write that
it was the anticipated delivery date when the stock was ordered, not
the anticipated date of entry into passenger service. The 2009 stock
was originally due to have been delivered much earlier and so broke
the rules by being redesignated rather than being 'late'. Nearly all
the stock has been delivered in the 'correct' year.

Of course, for the 1967 stock, the date was only missed by a couple of
months as the first trains ran on the Woodford - Hainault bit of the
Central line from February 1968.