Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2005 11:44:54 GMT
Just a quick one....  How high is the floor on the carriage above the ground? The reason I ask is that I've just obtained a copy of Train Sim Modeller and want to try to build a platform, but don't know how tall to make it. I've looked through DD's excellent site, as well as Tubeprune's (excellent as well), and the rolling stock information on the LU website. Thanks in advance, Andy |
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jul 19, 2005 13:08:35 GMT
Andy - the 1945 New Works Standards, which still apply today I believe, specified the following for the platform height above running rail level:
- 1' 8.5" for tube
- 2' 9" for non-tube
Running rail height is 7.5" above the top of timber level - this applies to both bullhead and flatbottom running rail.
There are no doubt 'compromise' dimensions for platform heights where both tube and non-tube stock use the same platform. Usually these heights are inherited historically.
That is a stock question which you'd need to look at specific stock diagrams, depending on how accurate you want to model. I would think there are reasonably standard dimensions for tube and non-tube vehicles though. (Haven't got any drawings immediately to hand.)
One of things that always strikes me about trainsims is how naff the representation of the track is - trainsimmers seem commendably keen on getting details of stock correct, but the track is resolutely two-dimensional!
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jul 19, 2005 13:09:18 GMT
;DHow high is the floor on the carriage above the ground?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the last time I looked Andy, it was higher than the wheels but lower than the roof!! ;D
Seriously though for surface stock it's about 5 ft and tube stock roughly 3 ft.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jul 19, 2005 13:12:58 GMT
- 1' 8.5" for tube
- 2' 9" for non-tube
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don't know how they arrive at those measurements as when I was on the trains the floor level of surface stock if you were standing in the 6ft was about my shoulder level and I am 6ft tall. On tube stock it was just below my waist level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2005 13:54:42 GMT
The ever knowledgable members of the DD Forum... Thanks Russ and Q8 - will go away tonight and have a 'play' and see what I can come up with. One of things that always strikes me about trainsims is how naff the representation of the track is - trainsimmers seem commendably keen on getting details of stock correct, but the track is resolutely two-dimensional! Russ Couldn't agree more! Well the last time I looked Andy, it was higher than the wheels but lower than the roof!! Very good Q8. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jul 19, 2005 14:04:05 GMT
Andy - just been looking at a few Q stock drawings.
Height from running rail level to underside of solebar was 3'2".
The solebar height was a tad over 6", so the floor level is approx 3'8" (3' 8 1/16" for a Q31 for example if you want to be really picky).
The centre of the coupler height for Q stock was set at approx 2' 5 3/8" above running rail level, and I would imagine this was a standard setting for surface stock.
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jul 19, 2005 14:54:47 GMT
Look I am getting all conflummoxed here. I have no doubt that Russ is right with his measurements but what confoozles me is that if the solebar is 6ft off the deck how can the floor level be LOWER.. (Someone explain it to the silly old git)
|
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jul 19, 2005 15:43:15 GMT
Look I am getting all conflummoxed here. I have no doubt that Russ is right with his measurements but what confoozles me is that if the solebar is 6ft off the deck how can the floor level be LOWER.. (Someone explain it to the silly old git) 6" in my message is six inches!! Here's a not-to-scale sketch:  Hope that makes things clearer. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jul 19, 2005 16:01:10 GMT
6" in my message is six inches!! Here's a not-to-scale sketch: Hope that makes things clearer. Russ. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- See,..... silly as arsoles me! Can't tell me feet from me ear'oles. (Going in hospital for a brain op soon. If they can find me one) |
|
|
|
Post by NotAGooner on Jul 19, 2005 22:18:16 GMT
Just a brief introduction, I have always been fascinated with trains and especially the Underground and their intrinsic inner workings.
My question is are the stations east of, I think Stratford on the Central line, the platforms being higher than the rest of the tube, is this because at one time they were used by full size rail stock (not ss stock)?
By the way, excellent site, very informative and full of the old London humour, of which I miss the most here in the USA
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 19, 2005 22:35:17 GMT
is this because at one time they were used by full size rail stock (not ss stock)? The Central Line beyond Stratford was previously made up of LNER branch lines, which fed into Liverpool St. This was getting rather congested before WWII, so it was decided that LU would take them over. As the stations were "recycled", the platforms are higher than they would be if they were built for tube stock. The access map in the maps section of the LU website shows relative heights of platforms at many stations on the network. For a good description of all the LU lines, I'd recommend Clive's Underground Line Guides at www.davros.org/rail/culg/ |
|
|
|
Post by NotAGooner on Jul 19, 2005 22:43:45 GMT
Cheers compsci, and the tunneling between Leytonstone and Newbury Park I presume was added at the same time too?
Yes thanks I am aware of Clive's site, a veritable mine of information but thought I would get some live feedback from the guys in the trenches as it were.
|
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jul 19, 2005 23:02:25 GMT
Partly correct. Leyton to Ongar was all inherited from the London North Eastern Railway, so those stations had (and still have, mostly) platforms set as they were back in (Great Eastern Railway) Victorian times for steam-hauled surface stock (from and to Liverpool Street). In reality, platforms tended to be set quite low in those days, the steam-hauled stock being fitted with footboards at the bottom (or later, the middle of) solebar level, so there was always a considerable 'step up' to the steam stock. The platform heights are therefore rather well-suited to their present tube stock use. The history of the Leytonstone to Woodford 'loop' is a bit more complex, with bits of it inherited from the LNER, but the majority of the loop (Leytonstone round to Hainhault) was constructed new to tube standards.
Q8's slight consternation at the official height-settings of platforms is understandable to an extent. The New Works Standards were just that, i.e. they were for completely new works only. Those heights do not infer compliance of any of the inherited historical system.
Russ
|
|
