|
|
Post by phillw48 on Feb 24, 2011 17:55:41 GMT
There was a thread a short while ago where suggestions were made about the disposal of the 'D' stock when the time comes for their replacement by 'S' stock. Perhaps this system will be interested:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namma_MetroThe system is to standard gauge 750V third rail collection. Some modification and the installation of air conditioning may be required. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Feb 24, 2011 18:08:12 GMT
I doubt it, the lack of aircon will be a problem, and lets face it, the D stock never was any good with ventilation ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 2:26:01 GMT
May the WAG could electrify the Cardiff valley lines using 4th rail and use 2nd hand D stock
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2011 19:23:01 GMT
May the WAG could electrify the Cardiff valley lines using 4th rail and use 2nd hand D stock Wouldn't it be cheaper to modify the motor cars to return the current through the running rails? |
|
|
|
Post by underground2010 on Mar 6, 2011 13:36:09 GMT
If I had a choice, I would keep them in service on the District line for as long as possible. It seems a waste of money to me that they would refurbish all trains and then take them out of service a few years later. Although the line has a fair few problems, it's usually due to signal failures, not faulty trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Mar 6, 2011 18:54:25 GMT
D stock needed a refurb to be bought up to LU Livery Standard.
Legacy signalling causes issues yes, but the new signalling will only be compatible with the new trains. If you keep the D stock then you are delaying the new signalling for the entire Sub-Surface.
Also with the recent failure of the fleet the punters view is that they need to be replaced. 30 years and the millions of miles covered is long enough for any moving piece of metal to be fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Mar 6, 2011 23:33:07 GMT
...but the new signalling will only be compatible with the new trains. If you keep the D stock then you are delaying the new signalling for the entire Sub-Surface. What about in the case of Uxbridge-Rayners Lane? Surely the 1973 stock would not be compatible with the Met's new signalling? |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Mar 7, 2011 0:08:48 GMT
I'm sure they've thought of that and perhaps (My brain has just ticked over) they will replace the Piccadilly line fleet to make them compatible and/or make the Piccadilly Line a part of the SSR re-signalling project.
LU are discussing who should take the tender and IMHO I would pick Bombardier purely for the sake that it's their trains going in on the SSR and that they would know their trains best.
It would be a shame to see the D Stock go, I quite like them after the refurb.
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Mar 7, 2011 10:21:05 GMT
As I understand it, any new signalling system should be able to accommodate 'foreign' trains (which is what the 1973 TS will be), even if they can't manage them. Lineside signals would still be needed for their use, which means that they would have fixed blocks clear ahead of them. An S Stock train following a 1973 TS train should have a more flexible block ahead of it though.
All this is very much in the air at present though. I think that it's safe to say that the Piccadilly line will not get new stock as part of the SSR resignalling - this would have to tied in with resignalling the Piccadilly line, which would make the project far larger and aven more complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Mar 9, 2011 2:59:58 GMT
IMO the District should takeover the Uxbridge branch and keep the Ealing branch. I know, it'll complicate it further, but with new signalling and new trains it'd be easier to accomodate. Then the Piccadilly will have a clear +30tph run from Heathrow to Cockfosters, which considering how annoying it must be for rush hour commuters having to constantly step over Heathrow passengers bags, is worth it. Also it'll make the SSL resignalling much more simple and less prone to problems, haven't, for example, many of the issues on the Jubilee resignalling been down to the interfacing with the Metropolitan at Neasden?
|
|
|
|
Post by pgb on Mar 9, 2011 12:05:17 GMT
Use them on Merseyrail? It could make the service a bit speedier and a bit more comfy than the 507/8's that I use from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 9, 2011 21:58:11 GMT
They will all be scrapped I'm afraid - I think that although it's sad that they should be scrapped so soon after refurbishment, we all have to face the fact!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 9, 2011 22:25:18 GMT
Cardiff won't get a third/fourth rail top contact system. HSE has banned it for all new installations, apart from expansions of existing ones within limits. So its been said though. If someone could link to the directive...
Merseyrail seems a good idea; it'd mean the 507/8 could be cascaded and integrated elsewhere. Are they compatable with the 313s running wise?
Superteacher has the regrettable truth however, LU stock is only ever seemingly going to find marginal use in places where the niche of smallness is exploited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 22:26:49 GMT
Merseyrail is already 3rd rail so I don't think it would be a problem, just bond the old neggy shoes to the axles!
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Mar 9, 2011 22:44:27 GMT
Merseyrail is already 3rd rail so I don't think it would be a problem, just bond the old neggy shoes to the axles! The Mersey Tunnel line used to be 4-rail so why not just re-instate the fourth rail? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2011 0:41:16 GMT
Merseyrail is already 3rd rail so I don't think it would be a problem, just bond the old neggy shoes to the axles! The Mersey Tunnel line used to be 4-rail so why not just re-instate the fourth rail? Because it would cost more... D Stock on Merseyrail just isn't going to happen - refurbishment was nothing more than a cosmetic facelift. Sure, it probably lengthened the lives of the stock by 10 years or so, gave them more modern equipment and such but other components that could not be replaced (say the chassis of the vehicle for example) will become life expired over the course of the next 10 years. Are merseyrail going to want to pay to keep that in a good running condition? Or keep the 507s/508s they also recently spent a lot of money on refurbishing? Plus it could be the first instance of an Underground train being too big for a line - ever wondered why 508s have a flat roofline, not curved like other NR stocks? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 10, 2011 8:08:34 GMT
Merseyrail is already 3rd rail so I don't think it would be a problem, just bond the old neggy shoes to the axles! They tried that initially with the class 501s in the 70s with terrible results..... ;D |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 10, 2011 17:33:18 GMT
It seems its somewhat ironic with the NLL though. If it had stayed 4th rail there woudln't be such issues with dual electrification as there are with 3rd rail, and it'd naturally lend itself to running with surface stock.
D stock going towards South Acton...
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 10, 2011 18:12:11 GMT
This is true, however, perhaps the lack of voltage would have proved a problem in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2011 18:37:38 GMT
Merseyrail is already 3rd rail so I don't think it would be a problem, just bond the old neggy shoes to the axles! They tried that initially with the class 501s in the 70s with terrible results..... ;D 38ts do it fine on the IoW! |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Mar 10, 2011 18:41:21 GMT
They tried that initially with the class 501s in the 70s with terrible results..... ;D 38ts do it fine on the IoW! Only because of the lessons learnt with the 501s...... ;D |
|
