metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 30, 2012 9:35:08 GMT
I was reading last night at in order to cover the conversion of the 1903/15 stock trains to air door operation on the Central Line, some trains of 1920 cammel laird stock were used on the Central. This surpirised me; not because the current rail arrangement was different (history shows that LER were happy to adapt trains for use on other lines [1915 stock on the Watford Line] ) but because of the size of the tunnels then on the Central Line. These tunnels were smaller than the standard Yerkes tunnels and because it was later found that the 1920 CL stock was out of gauge on the Great Northern and City (the line built for mainline stock!!) Line! Can anyone explain?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 30, 2012 10:19:10 GMT
Can anyone explain? Bear with me - I have a vague memory of seeing something in the traffic notices. Can't promise, but I shall have a root around,
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 30, 2012 10:21:58 GMT
Thanks M
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 11:17:25 GMT
In 1926-1927 the Central London Railway was short of stock because of the reconstruction programme of its trains was at its height. This involved the modernisation and the fitting of air-worked doors to all CLR stock. To enable services to be maintained on the Central, two six-car trains of 1920 Cammell Laird stock (with the Piccadilly Line converted motor cars) were loaned to the CLR from mid-1926 to the summer of 1927. This disposes of many arguments about the ability of normal tube stock, almost 9ft 6ins high, to traverse the (then) slightly smaller Central London tube tunnels. CLR stock was but 9ft 4½ins high. It is possible, however, that the 1923 and later tube stocks 8ft 3ins wide at the eaves, would not fit, but with its 7ft 9ins eaves, the 1920 stock would! However, a concession was made. The 1920 stock was 9ft 5⅜ ins high with new 30ins diameter wheels – the wheels were 26½ins diameter when regarded as ‘fully worn’. The cars which were sent to the Central were fitted with 28ins wheels, hence were 9ft 4⅜ ins high on the basis of this one-inch reduction in wheel radius! Nevertheless, we learn from LER Traffic Notice No.45/26 (November 1926) that the 1920 stock was banned from using Marble Arch siding. By examination of the car mileage cards, we see that the mileage actually worked on the Central London was relatively low, in comparison with traditional CLR stock, which suggests that the 1920 stock may have been used only as a last resort if no other CLR stock was available. No other modification was needed to the trailers. On the motor cars, the only modification necessary was the removal of the positive shoes and connection of these shoe leads to the bogie frame (or connection of the main positive cable to the car or bogie frame). The stock then worked reverse polarity with its negative (centre) shoe on the CLR positive rail, and track return – indicating perhaps a reluctance for them to be used freely? Two three-car sets were transferred from the Piccadilly to the Central in June and July 1926 and a six-car block train in September 1926. The two threes went back to the Piccadilly on 1 July 1927, the block train on 1 September 1927.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 30, 2012 11:29:15 GMT
fascinating! Intrigued as to how they could have been out of gauge for the NCL though - presumably not on height! The one photo I have of cammell laird stock shows a very deep solebar so i wonder if the probelm was platform clearance?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 1, 2012 9:42:35 GMT
Thanks Reg. I often wondered why the CL stock was Out of gauge on the GN&C.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 1, 2012 22:38:20 GMT
Thanks Reg, very good info! Had often wondered about both points myself
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 1, 2012 22:54:34 GMT
Just a wild guess here, but is it something to do with carriage lengths and sweep profile?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 2, 2012 22:52:25 GMT
Won't be car lengths. The current 313s are much longer than the previous tube stock on the line. Could be soulbar depth?
|
|