|
Post by countryman on Sept 8, 2016 13:16:00 GMT
I've heard there aren't many if at all any points on the running line [of the Glasgow Subway] so it is relatively simple line. The only points are the access to the depot. Until 1980 it had no points at all - trains being craned in and out of the depot. If there were no points how did they access the depot. It would mean each train was fixed to inner or outer rail, all trains in service at the same time, no reduction of frequency for off peak etc. Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Sept 8, 2016 15:46:05 GMT
The only points are the access to the depot. Until 1980 it had no points at all - trains being craned in and out of the depot. If there were no points how did they access the depot. It would mean each train was fixed to inner or outer rail, all trains in service at the same time, no reduction of frequency for off peak etc. Or am I missing something here? As norbitonflyer says above, the trains were craned in and out of the system to the depot, no points necessary. This would be done during closed traffic hours presumably. This YouTube DVD preview video filmed in 1974 mentions and shows part of the procedure from around 2.10 onwards. Edit: Better shown on this one from 1980 at 3.40 onwards. You'll have to go to YouTube to watch this as embedding is disabled.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 20, 2018 16:45:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Sept 20, 2018 17:36:26 GMT
If our new trains don't look as good as that I'm moving out of London!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 19:21:30 GMT
Don't know if it's has been posted yet but Geoff Marshall you page has a video up where he doesn't put his feet on the seat!
The unit looks like a new and better version of the 1986 stock
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 20, 2018 20:31:34 GMT
Don't know if it's has been posted yet but Geoff Marshall you page has a video up where he doesn't put his feet on the seat! it hadn't, so voila !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 15:01:05 GMT
These trains look like a worthy upgrade - both nice looking and also recognisably Glasgow Subway brand of 'cute'.
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Sept 21, 2018 19:35:20 GMT
Don't know if it's has been posted yet but Geoff Marshall you page has a video up where he doesn't put his feet on the seat! it hadn't, so voila ! Sadly the video won't play (even on YouTube direct). Hope it's fixed soon, it looks very interesting.
Also, could the surplus existing stock be adapted to run on the Waterloo and City line, thus releasing the '92 stock' to bolster the Central line?
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 21, 2018 19:41:48 GMT
The surplus Glasgow stock? It would be smaller than what they've already got there.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Sept 21, 2018 19:42:57 GMT
Sadly the video won't play (even on YouTube direct). Hope it's fixed soon, it looks very interesting. Also, could the surplus existing stock be adapted to run on the Waterloo and City line, thus releasing the '92 stock' to bolster the Central line?
Have you ever travelled on the 'drain?'
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,409
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 21, 2018 20:46:40 GMT
The Glasgow subway is a much more restricted loading gauge than even the deep level tubes (3.35m vs 3.65m), it has a narrower track gauge (1219mm vs 1435mm), it runs on 600c third rail power (vs 630v fourth rail), has roughly half the top speed (34mph/62mph), is much shorter (3 × 12.58m vs 4 × 16.25m), narrower (2.34m vs 2.62m), shorter (2.65m vs 2.87m) giving a much lower capacity (277/train vs 444/train - even if expanded to 4 car trains (not that this would likely fit) it would only be 369/train). They also have fewer doors - 2 per side per car vs 2 double and 2 single per side per car. So while they could be adapted to run on the line, it would cost a huge amount of money and result in a very significantly lower capacity than at present so it's not money anybody is going to spend.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,233
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 21, 2018 21:39:38 GMT
Also, could the surplus existing stock be adapted to run on the Waterloo and City line, thus releasing the '92 stock' to bolster the Central line? No. Don't forget the 92ts on the W&C aren't currently compatible with the 92ts on the Central. The latter have had several modifications which didn't happen to the stock on the drain.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,233
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 21, 2018 21:56:04 GMT
For those that prefer picture to video, here are some snaps of the interior. Of particular note is the driving position, designed such that it can be removed when UTO is introduced: Click/tap here if embedded tweet fails to display.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 22, 2018 0:15:16 GMT
Also, could the surplus existing stock be adapted to run on the Waterloo and City line, thus releasing the '92 stock' to bolster the Central line? No. Don't forget the 92ts on the W&C aren't currently compatible with the 92ts on the Central. The latter have had several modifications which didn't happen to the stock on the drain. Think it’s in the region of several hundred modifications!
|
|
|
Post by dmncf on Sept 22, 2018 15:29:10 GMT
Edit: Better shown on this one from 1980 at 3.40 onwards. You'll have to go to YouTube to watch this as embedding is disabled. Great video. I hadn't realised that the first generation of Glasgow Subway trains were walkthrough between cars.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 23, 2018 10:50:45 GMT
Curious as to what the safety implications of this are... "Help we're stuck in the tunnel", "don't worry, the on-board CCTV will show us the way" Don't know how effective the on-board CCTV will be if there's a power failure though... UTO is concerning, especially as once it's in use, it will form the base to every argument on the subject of why "we need Driver-less trains". It should be noted though that Glascow Subway is in effect a simple system to automate and was to a large degree already fully automated for a while. However, I'm curious as to why UTO was necessary. What more does it have to bring to the table compared to ATO, aside from the fact that a dozen or so jobs have been lost.
Space - if drivers cabs are eliminated from the cabs then you get a little bit more room in the trains
Performance / frequency - no need to schedule staff changeovers to give them PNB, etc
Cost - Drivers are usually amongst the highest paid members of staff - if you can significantly reduce their number then operational costs fall (even though compensating measures like platform edge doors add to the maintenance burden and increase the number of assets that can fail).
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Sept 24, 2018 8:47:53 GMT
I had a walk through the train last week in Berlin; I'm a short-rear so can stand up inside it; some of my colleagues were bent a bit doing the same.
It's very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Sept 24, 2018 8:48:35 GMT
*hehe short-a*r*s*e*
Oh, and as stated above, it's a narrow gauge train. The photos earlier in the thread show it lifted off the standard gauge rails by an adaptor.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 24, 2018 9:04:59 GMT
*hehe short-a*r*s*e* Oh, and as stated above, it's a narrow gauge train. The photos earlier in the thread show it lifted off the standard gauge rails by an adaptor. Not that narrow gauge in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,409
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 24, 2018 12:16:03 GMT
*hehe short-a*r*s*e* Oh, and as stated above, it's a narrow gauge train. The photos earlier in the thread show it lifted off the standard gauge rails by an adaptor. Not that narrow gauge in the grand scheme of things. Everything that is too narrow to run on 1435mm (4ft 8½ in) standard gauge is narrow gauge. Interestingly, as far as I can find from a quick look at Wikipedia it seems the Glasgow Subway is the world's only operating 4ft-gauge railway.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Sept 24, 2018 12:22:44 GMT
Not that narrow gauge in the grand scheme of things. Everything that is too narrow to run on 1435mm (4ft 8½ in) standard gauge is narrow gauge. Interestingly, as far as I can find from a quick look at Wikipedia it seems the Glasgow Subway is the world's only operating 4ft-gauge railway. Cheapskates
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 24, 2018 13:55:40 GMT
Not that narrow gauge in the grand scheme of things. Everything that is too narrow to run on 1435mm (4ft 8½ in) standard gauge is narrow gauge. Interestingly, as far as I can find from a quick look at Wikipedia it seems the Glasgow Subway is the world's only operating 4ft-gauge railway. Not what I meant. Compared to some NG railways, 4 foot is wide. Also, Thailand has been able to operate a Sprinter sized train on metre-gauge.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 24, 2018 14:57:44 GMT
Everything that is too narrow to run on 1435mm (4ft 8½ in) gauge is "narrow gauge". Or 2140mm if you are a disciple of the great Isambard
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,409
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 24, 2018 15:05:13 GMT
Not what I meant. Compared to some NG railways, 4 foot is wide. Yes, but it's narrow compared to the Waterloo and City Line. Also, Thailand has been able to operate a Sprinter sized train on metre-gauge. Track gauge and loading gauge are not the same thing - London Underground is a good example of this as both deep tube and subsurface lines are standard gauge track but have different loading gauges.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Sept 24, 2018 18:12:01 GMT
That's my point. Clockwork Orange has pretty small loading gauge.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 25, 2018 8:22:42 GMT
Perhaps 'substandard' would be a better term than 'narrow'. It's used for motion-picture film by the Academy, and leaves no uncertainty. Brunel's gauge would presumably be 'superstandard'.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,409
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 25, 2018 9:07:28 GMT
I would take "substandard" gauge to be a section of track where the gauge was outside tolerance (either too wide or too narrow), e.g. what caused the derailment at Wimbledon last November.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,233
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 25, 2018 10:40:43 GMT
Perhaps what Glasgow has is not substandard, but subwaystandard.
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Sept 25, 2018 10:53:46 GMT
Thanks for all the comments on the fanciful suggestion of using the current Glasgow stock on the Drain - I hadn't appreciated how much smaller the trains are than LU stock. I've finally viewed the video on YouTube and the new trains are quite impressive.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 25, 2018 16:09:28 GMT
I would take "substandard" gauge to be a section of track where the gauge was outside tolerance (either too wide or too narrow), e.g. what caused the derailment at Wimbledon last November. ...In much the same way that some folk outside the film industry think that 'substandard' film means film where the emulsion is poor, or the sprocket-holes badly punched, rather than film of less than 35mm width, such as 17.5, 16 or 9.5mm.
|
|