On Aug 12, 7:40*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:15:51 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:

True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock
would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and
setting up a production line from scratch, though.

I think that all rather depends on assumptions about what sort of tube
train design LUL might desire for the Bakerloo Line fleet .....

A train designed for an extended Bakerloo line would be nice...


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.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 12, 7:40*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:15:51 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:

True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished
stock would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge
train and setting up a production line from scratch, though.

I think that all rather depends on assumptions about what sort of tube
train design LUL might desire for the Bakerloo Line fleet .....

A train designed for an extended Bakerloo line would be nice...

Wasn't the 1949 tube stock designed for that?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T 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.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

On Aug 19, 7:19*am, asdf wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T 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.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

Have these connections been used for anything other than engineering
trains for the past several years though?

On 19 Aug, 07:19, asdf wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T 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.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

Is it that they actually don't fit, or just that it would be so
expensive and time-consuming to confirm whether they do that it isn't
worth it?

On Aug 19, 11:17*pm, MIG wrote:
Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park redundant
(except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a specific
reference off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

They won't ever go to Acton Works, by road or otherwise. All
maintenance will be at Northumberland Park; anything that can't be
done at Northumberland Park will be done at Derby.

Engineering trains will continue to use the Picc-Vic connections at
Finsbury Park.

Is it that they actually don't fit, or just that it would be so
expensive and time-consuming to confirm whether they do that it isn't
worth it?

AIUI "they" (presumably Metronet) ran a 1967 Stock with bits of foam
stuck to it through the Picc to see if it did. Either it didn't, or
the decision was made to deliver by road anyway.

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the trains
than via half the Underground network...?)

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

John B wrote:

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML?

Lea Valley Lines, actually.... the GEML runs through Ilford.

Northumberland Park depot was a former rail depot, so junctions on the Lea
Valley Lines must have been actually removed when the Tube depot was
created.

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On Aug 19, 11:17*pm, MIG wrote:
Same here - IIRC they don't fit through the Picc tunnels, so if they
need to go to Acton Works, they'll have to go by road. This
effectively makes the Picc-Vic connections at Finsbury Park
redundant (except maybe for engineering trains?). I don't have a
specific reference off the top of my head though, so I could be
wrong.

They won't ever go to Acton Works, by road or otherwise. All
maintenance will be at Northumberland Park; anything that can't be
done at Northumberland Park will be done at Derby.

Engineering trains will continue to use the Picc-Vic connections at
Finsbury Park.

Is it that they actually don't fit, or just that it would be so
expensive and time-consuming to confirm whether they do that it isn't
worth it?

AIUI "they" (presumably Metronet) ran a 1967 Stock with bits of foam
stuck to it through the Picc to see if it did. Either it didn't, or
the decision was made to deliver by road anyway.

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the trains
than via half the Underground network...?)

Northumberland Park depot was in 1967 connected to the Lea Valley line
that runs alongside it (not the GEML many miles away).

Somebody decided it would be a good idea to remove the connection after
the 1967TS stock had been delivered.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, wrote:

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the trains
than via half the Underground network...?)

Northumberland Park depot was in 1967 connected to the Lea Valley line
that runs alongside it (not the GEML many miles away).

Somebody decided it would be a good idea to remove the connection after
the 1967TS stock had been delivered.

Yes, to stop it escaping. Very sensible.

tom

--
There are many ways of going crazy, but the most valuable of them is
this one which makes a genius out of an ordinary man. -- Claudio Grondi

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, wrote:

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

(why wasn't Northumberland Park connected to the GEML? Even in 1967
that would surely have been a more sensible way to deliver the
trains than via half the Underground network...?)

Northumberland Park depot was in 1967 connected to the Lea Valley
line that runs alongside it (not the GEML many miles away).

Somebody decided it would be a good idea to remove the connection
after the 1967TS stock had been delivered.

Yes, to stop it escaping. Very sensible.

Since points are expensive, they would have been removed anyway whenever the
mainline track was replaced, which I imagine might be more than once in the
last 40 years. ISTR there is some railway in Australia which is used
seasonally for transporting some crop, and the flat crossing with a mainline
is removed and put back every year because this saves money over leaving the
crossing in situ.