|
Post by maxym on May 31, 2013 9:42:02 GMT
For the original Steam on the Met there was some sort of interface box that allowed the vacuum braked steam locomotive to operate with the air braked LU stock. Now that Sarah Siddons has had vacuum brakes refitted it acts as the interface between the two different brake systems. During the last two of the original 'Steam on the Met' series the steam locomotives were simply equipped with air brake valves on a pedestal in the cab, air pressure being supplied by either 'Sarah' or the class 20. I imagine it was the same for all the others.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on May 20, 2013 18:33:43 GMT
To be honest, I think most would just love to see them being scrapped +1
|
|
|
Post by maxym on May 19, 2013 10:25:22 GMT
There have been a couple of instances with the 38 Stock of passengers on a platform thinking that it is a service train and trying to board it if it stops. Hardly likely to be of relevance to the audience on this forum. You must have been picked for your communication skills and friendly nature.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on May 17, 2013 16:44:34 GMT
I'll be stewarding the A Stock all day. Please don't put your feet on the seats or try and force the doors open or anything. Are you kidding?
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Apr 2, 2013 8:53:51 GMT
Thanks Roy. That too sounds encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 17, 2013 21:52:19 GMT
I almost always travel in the 32xx car and always look out for unit 3299. I seem not to see it that often (compared with 'regular' units'), though I suspect I have an equal chance of seeing any Bakerloo line unit - excepting any that are long-term stopped of course...
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 17, 2013 9:06:07 GMT
Thanks Compsci; that does sound more encouraging. I saw that 'Depot' open day... and then realised I'd be in the US and flying back on the Sunday, so will just miss it. But if anyone else would like to go along and offer encouragement, make suggestions or lend support... I'll just have to find another opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 15, 2013 11:06:52 GMT
Unfortunately much of the above floor equipment on Q Stock was at line voltage including passenger/cab lighting, front marker lights and other cab switches etc. An extensive rewire would be required to meet modern standards and would probably lose the unique sound of these trains. I reckon such an old train would require pretty much a total re-wire anyway... But maybe my dream is starting to fade. Those of you in the know seem quite pessimistic about it all. But then we all thought the modern-day GCR never stood a hope in hell's chance of bridging the gap between the north and south section, and it seems now they're likely to be able to do it.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 15, 2013 10:59:01 GMT
Wouldn't that turn it into CO/CP stock? Works for me!
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 15, 2013 5:22:41 GMT
The three cars I'm referring to are the two Q38 DMs 4416/7 and the trailer 08063. Nice as though it would be to see it active, I'm happy to accept that a Q23 car is too big a challenge. The various posts have helped me understand, I think, a bit more about the electrical issues: I gather that the Q38 cars don't have PCM traction control equipment. Any chance that PCM could be substituted for the original? It wouldn't be totally authentic but at least at least there would be some flared-side surface stock running... It would be great if there were an electro-mechanical workaround, as on the Brighton Belle project. And if with enough will and concerted effort - and not a little passion shared by many from which has stemmed an exciting vision - it could be made to happen. I guess I'm dreaming, but the history of railway preservation has shown that dreams can come true - look at Tornado and the GWR railmotor to name just two! See link (which I suspect has been posted earlier, though it's partially obscured by a quote and unclickable).
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 14, 2013 19:24:37 GMT
Hi, thanks for replying - I think I know you from Flickr :-). The 'new, improved' Proboards has rendered your first line unreadable... Would you mind re-posting?
Cheers, peter
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 14, 2013 18:07:46 GMT
I was reading one of the LT Museum Friends bulletins the other day. I gathered that the restoration of the three cars will, for the present, be limited to 'the solebars up', on the grounds that funding is difficult anyway and there are problems regarding compatibility of the electrical equipment with the new 750V dc standard for the Underground, which will add to the expense.
I would LOVE to see these cars restored to running condition, particularly the Q38 motor cars which will basically be like COP DMs (for me the COP stock was the most wonderful Underground train of all time - too young to really appreciate Q stock at the time lol). Is the situation really hopeless?
Are the electrical issues really insurmountable?
How about an application for Lottery funding?
What about organising volunteer labour to keep costs down and speed up the project? (I'd be willing to get involved; I work on steam from time to time and I'm a Friends member but I'm not aware of anyone asking.)
How about doing some serious begging? Many restoration projects succeed because of donations large and small. Follow the 'Tornado' model, for example. And some of the bigger ones do so because they enlist the help of one or more individuals with deep pockets. A number of the preserved steam railways have benefited mightily from wealthy benefactors.
The Brighton Belle project shows what can be done with determination (and a lot of money). But that will be an old electric train capable of working on the modern electrified railway.
I think the Q stock project needs more profile and needs to be more aggressive in terms of asking for funds and support. And as an aside, the Friends give me the impression of being rather a closed shop, never saying 'hey come and join us, support us and get stuck in!'
Come on guys, can't we get a running Q stock 3-car unit and recreate a fantastic bit of LT's history?
PS Just realised: my avatar is very revealing!
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 9, 2013 10:24:37 GMT
Oh dear, some people just don't get it, do they?
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 8, 2013 15:42:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Mar 8, 2013 14:32:17 GMT
I think so too. Have you driven one? No I imagine the 1938TS was welcomed by passengers when introduced? It would be welcomed by me if it were re-introduced.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Feb 17, 2013 9:19:06 GMT
Thanks, reganorak.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Feb 14, 2013 11:55:11 GMT
Nope, the closing tag has to be [/url] This page will tell you all you want to know [/quote] I'll bookmark it! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Feb 14, 2013 9:51:26 GMT
Thanks all. Can anyone supply a specific date? I had 1977/8 in my mind as well. And thanks Londonstuff. Just to be clear, it's webaddress[url/] - correct?
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Feb 14, 2013 7:47:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Feb 8, 2013 17:59:30 GMT
NF, some of that was new to me and v interesting. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 19, 2013 19:59:17 GMT
Thanks Rincew1nd...
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 19, 2013 18:09:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 19, 2013 17:38:12 GMT
NEW X GATE is another one And didn't 1938 stock on the Northern display VIA CHARING X (or was it CHARING +)?
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 7, 2013 17:56:14 GMT
Hi all ... all carriages will be done. kabsonline 'Cars' not 'carriages'. Please...
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 7, 2013 17:53:38 GMT
How about "Ruislip Gdns" and "Rayners Ln" ? Not in the same league as 'High St', Ealing' or 'Elephant'...
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 6, 2013 12:56:07 GMT
Excellent. Thanks all.
I'd forgotten about 'Kensington (Olympia)' - per earlier maps - which was abbreviated on all stocks working the District.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 4, 2013 15:49:12 GMT
I wondered about 'Hounslow'. Presumably Standard and 1938 stocks on the Piccadilly used this as well...?
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 4, 2013 12:26:53 GMT
It is sad that, with the passing of the A stock, trains terminating at Harrow-on-the-Hill no longer indicate 'Harrow' as the destination. I presume this was a throwback to the era of enamelled metal destination plates for which 'HotH' in full was too long.
Other examples of abbreviated station names (all from the destination plate era) spring to mind:
Dagenham (East) Ealing (Broadway) High St (Ken) Elephant (& Castle)...
and maybe the best: Watford LMR on Bakerloo Line trains.
Any others?
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Jan 3, 2013 13:36:37 GMT
All very interesting, and I'm sure the 378s make economic sense on the 'musical chairs' national network. But if you were designing a train for an inner-city metro service you'd build in plenty of doors for easy/quick ingress/egress - as LT did and the Underground does (even for the Met). The reason why many services south of the river have slower schedules than in SR days (late-arrival penalties aside) is that trains with multiple slam-doors were quicker to load/unload.
|
|
|
Post by maxym on Dec 22, 2012 18:21:51 GMT
I can't help but think that LO has the wrong trains. Why does an inner suburban network a) need trains capable of 75 mph, and b) have trains with only two sets of double doors?
Surely something like LU S stock - plenty of doors and standing/circulating room, plus fast acceleration (and OK, a 70 mph service speed IIRC lol) - would have been rather better. Seems to me that dwell times are shorter with S stock, and once the doors are closed a train of S is away more quickly than the leisurely 378.
|
|