On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:38:02 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:17:57 +0100
Bruce wrote:


On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:41:53 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

And if I had the power I'd say ...


yawn

Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who tried to
convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.


Even though they are. You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:38:46 +0800, "DW downunder" noname wrote:

The internal diameter was (IIRC) 12'3" (3734mm) for cast iron and 12'6"
(3810mm) for concrete lining segments. This compares with the Yerkes'
standard of 11'8 1/4" (3562mm).


Correct.

The missing statistic is the post-Yerkes standard, which was 11' 6".

Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who tried to
convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.

Even though they are. You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused.

I'd love to hear what possible redefinition of the word "fenced" could
possibly be used to justify that claim.

On 13 Aug, 12:55, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message

...





"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
. au
"Recliner" wrote in message
.. .
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
o.uk
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.

OK, stop further into the running tunnels, but you already knew what I
meant. But your other points do make sense.

Incidentally, they're 3m longer than the old trains, which were already
long by tube train standards. This might be another reason for them not
ever being expected to run in service on other LU lines.

Vic and Central were the only 8-car lines. With the Jubilee now 7-car
(longer cars) and platform doors, clearly no cascade path there. Central
Line has the additional central area restriction that presently leads to the
outer (3rd) current rail being mounted higher than on the rest of LU lines
and NR 3rd rail.

So it seems that any semblance of integrated fleet management across LU has
been abandoned for now. The '09 stock is IT for the Vic for the next 35-40
years unless it proves a lemon like the 83. Given the cautious steps towards
introduction, there's a chance it'll prove at least a grapefruit if not a
very nice juicy navel.

The only possibility is extra stock for the Central Line being built based
on the same development platform but to the more universal loading gauge
... *then if extra trains for the Vic were required at the same time, they
may be to that more universal spec. That could only happen if more trains
could be run on the Vic or some were damaged and needed replacing. More
trains probably means changes to the signalling - anybody want to vounteer
to be project manager? *

Original train formation/length doesn't seem to stop 1972 stock being
compatible with 1967 stock or 1992 stock running on the Waterloo &
City. Units can be reformed.

On 13 Aug 2009 15:30:40 GMT
Adrian wrote:


Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who tried to
convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.

Even though they are. You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused.

I'd love to hear what possible redefinition of the word "fenced" could
possibly be used to justify that claim.

I wouldn't bother getting into an argument with him - he's the sort of person
who'd argue blacks white instead of admitting he's talking crap.

The old phrase "Never get into an argument with an idiot..." couldn't be
more applicable to Bruce.

B2003

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who tried
to convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.

Even though they are. You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused.

I'd love to hear what possible redefinition of the word "fenced" could
possibly be used to justify that claim.

I wouldn't bother getting into an argument with him - he's the sort of
person who'd argue blacks white instead of admitting he's talking crap.

No, I meant it - I'd love to hear it...

This has the potential for Duhg levels of semantic shenanigans.

On Aug 13, 4:15*pm, Bruce wrote:
Even though they are. *You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll...11,210.32,,0,5

Wait, whats that noise?

Oh yes, its the sound of a very heavy penny dropping on Bruces foot.
Luckily his other foot is already out of harms way in his mouth.

B2003

"MIG" wrote in message



Original train formation/length doesn't seem to stop 1972 stock being
compatible with 1967 stock or 1992 stock running on the Waterloo &
City. Units can be reformed.

Not so easily with complex new stock. The W&C and Central were
re-equipped at the same time with essentially identical trains, except
that the W&C trains had only one pair of the two-car units. The W&C line
was re-built at the same time.

The 1972 stock is based on the 1967 stock, so they're very similar (but
with different cabs, of course). Similarly, the 1995 and 1996 stocks
are close cousins, but aren't electrically compatible.

But the new 2009 stock is being supplied in fixed 4-car formations that
wouldn't be easily re-formed. Its 8-car trains wouldn't fit any other
tube line.

Of course, things are going the other way on the SSL, with, for the
first time ever, the same stock used throughout with the new S stock.

On Aug 13, 8:45*am, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who tried
to convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.
Even though they are. *You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused..
I'd love to hear what possible redefinition of the word "fenced" could
possibly be used to justify that claim.
I wouldn't bother getting into an argument with him - he's the sort of
person who'd argue blacks white instead of admitting he's talking crap.

No, I meant it - I'd love to hear it...

This has the potential for Duhg levels of semantic shenanigans.

Be warned: Polson will drag you down to his level then beat you with
experience. He is best ignored. He won't go away, but you will not
be entrapped in an illogical discussion you can never win.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Basil Jet wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:22:13 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

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."

Ironically, one of the reasons why the Victoria Line tunnel was built
to a larger diameter was to reduce air resistance. ;-)

It's not unreasonable to build the first stock for the line small to
reduce air resistance, and then build subsequent stock large to push the
hot air along.

If the air's hot, then building the train bigger means there's less of it
surrounding the train, so the train won't get heated up by it so much.
Stands to reason.

tom

--
Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket!