metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 18, 2024 10:55:41 GMT
He certainly is!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 15, 2024 13:04:08 GMT
I too loved the A stock. The 1973 stock has a much more modern (or sorts) camshaft arrangement and sounds less busy then the older 1972 stock.
I will miss the 1973 stock. They still seem to be very effective albeit a little limited on capacity.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 15, 2024 12:59:12 GMT
No. Incompatible with the signalling system, for a start, plus has no authority to run on the main line and would need significant maintenance to do so. Also, I think the train's owners might need to be consulted - and I understand it is currently motorless after the traction motors were loaned to LU for the TRV. Yes if you get Underground News, there’s a good piece this month on the plight of the Track Recording Train. Hopefully it will be back in action soon but it appears neither Cravens set is able to do its job currently.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 15, 2024 12:53:04 GMT
He only had the R47 NDM prepared but I think would have done the R49 DM if there was demand. There were also parts to convert the Q38 driving motor body into an R38 car.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 5, 2024 5:48:57 GMT
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 29, 2024 11:33:27 GMT
I can understand where you are coming from with the window sizes, especially on the 2024 tube stock but the large windows on the 1992 tube stock certainly contributed to overheating in summer so this feature may improve this issue slightly.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 12, 2024 7:03:18 GMT
There are no updates at all unfortunately. I have been in contact with the new trustees of the range.
I’ve tried to contact them but have heard nothing back.
If I hear anything I’ll post something.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 1, 2024 17:33:29 GMT
Not sure if I missed something but what would be the benefit of non-stopping Wembley Park in the Northbound direction?
I could potentially see merit in non-stopping some southbound trains but it would need careful sequencing so the fast service did not end up being stuck behind the semi fast service. They other issue is customers needing to change at Wembley to head north again to stop at the affected stations would have fewer options which seems a little unfair.
I headed into London late this morning and found the journey ok. Going with a buggy highlighted the difficulty for those that might need a lift to change platforms - especially as the lift at Harrow pl3/4 was out of service!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 25, 2024 21:34:22 GMT
I assume it is too much hassle to retain them for passenger standards after withdrawal although it would be nice.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 25, 2024 21:28:21 GMT
I’ve not seen a 378 on the DC (Lioness) line for a while now.
Assume they have all relocated to the other routes?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 15, 2024 22:23:00 GMT
Before we end up in RIPAS territory I think the parameters would need to be established. The aforementioned 1925 service was able to use the former bay platform at Rickmansworth being a single car train. The current S stock train would either have to reverse in one of the platforms at Rickmansworth or carry on to Amersham - Chesham doesn’t have capacity. It is questionable in the current timetable if Watford also has platform capacity either?
Probably a political gambit as suggested and the forum does not do politics, so end off!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 13, 2024 21:49:24 GMT
Glad it’s fixed as my aunt is coming from Brussels tomorrow and needs to get to Northwood. She doesn’t know our transport system well (although has been on it lots) she knows the Watford trains don’t run to St Pancras but to get an Amersham or Chesham train.
Last time she ended up on an Uxbridge service!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 10, 2024 18:26:48 GMT
The points at Watford South Junction aren’t that old are they. That’s disappointing.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 5, 2024 21:35:41 GMT
Is there any additional stand time being added to semi-fast trains at Harrow-on-the-Hill?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 3, 2024 13:02:51 GMT
Does this mean that Preston Road and Northwick Park have 4tph going north off peak and 12tph south?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 25, 2024 22:52:36 GMT
I’ve always considered the middle platforms at Acton Town to be mostly used for the Heathrow service. That has the highest frequency. The District and Uxbridge branches seem to be lumped together and as they have a lower frequency they share the outer platforms from experience. It’s not an area I travel through regularly but I just feel it is a capacity issue.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 24, 2024 7:17:34 GMT
Might be a repair? If a small section was damaged they might be one reason. Are there services that needed to be got to? You’d think everything was accessible under the chassis though?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 24, 2024 7:12:51 GMT
Thankfully technology has moved on now and it will be interesting to see how the real-time performance of the 2024 stock compares to the current 1973 stock.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 15, 2024 21:42:17 GMT
I think the plan was to have two semi permanent four car units originally. Whether they would have had middle cabs I don’t know.
I’m not sure of the unit details but I wonder if each pair of cars was to have a shared bogie so each four car unit would have 6 bogies.
This would have led to 12 bogies per 8 cars which is the same as a 6 car 1973 stock train. As you say that achieved the running gear savings proposed. The overall shorter train length also opened up one person operation as the whole train would be in the platform.
The Victoria Line Space Train was an interesting concept although originally proposed to be operated from an overhead line, I think the Victoria Line passenger did rather well out of the 2009 tube stock…
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 3, 2024 21:36:13 GMT
There were off course the 6 R49 driving motor cars built from new but as said I expect it was just what was done at the time!
I understand that the A stock, 1956-62 tube stock and even 1938 tube stock carried oil lamps in the early days which was perhaps a proving exercise as much as anything.
Interesting times…
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
R stock
Jan 1, 2024 17:51:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by metman on Jan 1, 2024 17:51:09 GMT
Yes only the surplus R47 cars were disposed of and they were stripped for their large window glazing and presumably other useful parts.
There was a proposal to sell some 5 car trains to Athens but this fell through.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Dec 22, 2023 18:14:15 GMT
They are certainly considered light rail so the mitigations are certainly sensible.
We will have to see how the powers that be handle this. Given the debate had here it won’t be an easy solution.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Dec 21, 2023 7:28:22 GMT
Yes there was a diversion of an HST set down the DC line many years ago.
This probably crawled along and was likely piloted by a DC lines driver.
Things have moved on of course and I consider the relative tube/mainline train collision risks similar to a car hitting a lorry!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 27, 2023 17:52:45 GMT
It’s my work do the evening before so I might be pushing it but I’ll see what can be done….
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 27, 2023 17:50:29 GMT
No they won’t need to change unless they want to continue onto Watford of course but you would expect the train operator to announce they change at Kenton….ideally…
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 26, 2023 16:23:10 GMT
I assume the lack of scissors is due to practicality. The wrong road reverse back south from Platform 1 to save time is sufficient within the flexibility of the layout at Harrow and Wealdstone.
It is difficult to say what operational benefit the scissors would provide as a Northbound terminating train arriving on Platform 2 would conflict with southbound Overground trains from Watford and Bakerloo trains exiting the siding. It would also lead to confusion with passengers having to move platforms via the footbridge or lifts.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 24, 2023 23:13:44 GMT
I wonder if a crossover to the north of the current siding at Harrow would work? With a 15 min interval between trains heading north towards Watford Junction there might be capacity to do some relief moves this way? It would mean extending the fourth rail north a little but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t sound so bad.
Thoughts?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 19, 2023 18:57:05 GMT
Yes they would have run in shorter trains off peak. The pre-1938 stock also ran in short formations until 1936. I think I read that the Piccadilly gate stock operated in 6 car trains in a 3+3 formation. This was copied by the 1920 tube stock (the first tube stock with air doors using converted gate stock motor coaches) and also the pre-1938 stock as well. The gate stock was gone by 1930.
I’m sure the formations varied though so try and get hold of a working timetable from the 1920s. The control trailers were driven from open platforms so whilst they were in tunnel much of the time it can’t have been much fun for the motorman!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 19, 2023 18:39:20 GMT
Yes it does sound similar to an S stock. Not been on the Central Line for a while so can’t remember the acceleration but looks broadly similar?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Nov 14, 2023 21:07:50 GMT
I would imagine a 5 car formation would be suitable for most layouts being a similarish length to a 4 car train of S Stock.
Additional Motor/Bridging pairs would probably be available to lengthen trains like the S stock.
I wonder if any other releases using the chassis will be produced like the Isle of Wight two car sets?
|
|