I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.

My plan was to station myself on one station that dates from the same era as the train, and is little changed from when
such trains served it, and another that's completed different today.

For the heritage station, my first idea was the iconic, Grade II* listed Sudbury Town, regarded as one of Holden's best.
However, I realised that the best views of it are from the forecourt, not the platforms, so changed the plan, and went
to Park Royal instead. This is a station that looks like a bucolic rural line at the southern end, but has a rather
impressive surface building at the northern end that towers over the platforms. That worked well.

My idea for a modern station was Hillingdon, where the current station is completely modern. It was built 30 years ago
in a slightly different location to the original, to make way for the widening of the A40 (which also passes Park Royal
station). It's a striking, modern design that I thought would make a nice contrast with the art deco 1930s train. But my
plan went awry.

I planned to photograph the train as it ran through Park Royal, then catch the following service train to Hillingdon,
where I hoped to view the heritage train on its return. I know it would be running around 15-20 minutes ahead of the
following Piccadilly line service train by then, but hoped it would spend at least 15 minute in Uxbridge, leaving me
just enough time to get to Hillingdon to shoot it on its return. But it beat me to it, passing my train at Ickenham.

I then had the choice of waiting another 90 minutes for it to return, or to follow it to another location. What swing it
for me was that the shiny new 1992 Hillingdon station is now looking a bit tatty, and is actually in worse condition
than the heritage stations. So I changed my plan, and decided to use Alperton instead. This is an authentic 1930s Holden
station, little changed since then, but is now surrounded by towering modern apartment blocks, very different to the
near rural surroundings when the station was built. They make a nice contrast with the art deco 1930s train.

Here's my shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956

On Mon, 01 May 2023 13:50:02 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>follow it to another location. What swing it
>for me was that the shiny new 1992 Hillingdon station is now looking a bit
>tatty, and is actually in worse condition

A lot of 80s and 90s architecture doesn't seem to have been built to last, at
least from a surface POV. Some of the docklands buildings from that era look
absolutely knackered and in fact quite a lot has been demolished for all the
new towers, whereas the converted warehouses still look mint.

On 01.05.23 15:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 01 May 2023 13:50:02 +0100
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> follow it to another location. What swing it
>> for me was that the shiny new 1992 Hillingdon station is now looking a bit
>> tatty, and is actually in worse condition
>
> A lot of 80s and 90s architecture doesn't seem to have been built to last, at
> least from a surface POV. Some of the docklands buildings from that era look
> absolutely knackered and in fact quite a lot has been demolished for all the
> new towers, whereas the converted warehouses still look mint.

Comparing new buildings with those of a previous generation has a huge
survivorship bias in it. When buildings are built, a mix of well
designed, well built ones go up along with a whole load of cheap
garbage. Over time the cheap garbage gets replaced.

Robin

On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:05:56 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 01.05.23 15:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 May 2023 13:50:02 +0100
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> follow it to another location. What swing it
>>> for me was that the shiny new 1992 Hillingdon station is now looking a bit
>>> tatty, and is actually in worse condition
>>
>> A lot of 80s and 90s architecture doesn't seem to have been built to last, at
>
>> least from a surface POV. Some of the docklands buildings from that era look
>> absolutely knackered and in fact quite a lot has been demolished for all the
>> new towers, whereas the converted warehouses still look mint.
>
>Comparing new buildings with those of a previous generation has a huge
>survivorship bias in it. When buildings are built, a mix of well
>designed, well built ones go up along with a whole load of cheap
>garbage. Over time the cheap garbage gets replaced.

Thats fair enough, but I was talking about to Barrett Homes. I lot of the
buildings being demolished in docklands were supposedly built to last offices
and warehouses. I will admit that the 80s stuff at canada square still looks
ok from the outside but definately the exception to the rule.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 01.05.23 15:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 May 2023 13:50:02 +0100
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> follow it to another location. What swing it
>>> for me was that the shiny new 1992 Hillingdon station is now looking a bit
>>> tatty, and is actually in worse condition
>>
>> A lot of 80s and 90s architecture doesn't seem to have been built to last, at
>> least from a surface POV. Some of the docklands buildings from that era look
>> absolutely knackered and in fact quite a lot has been demolished for all the
>> new towers, whereas the converted warehouses still look mint.
>
> Comparing new buildings with those of a previous generation has a huge
> survivorship bias in it. When buildings are built, a mix of well
> designed, well built ones go up along with a whole load of cheap
> garbage. Over time the cheap garbage gets replaced.
>

Yes, very much so. And this process is accelerated in earthquake zones,
where only the best-built older buildings remain. Some people could
misinterpret that to mean that building standards were higher in the old
days, when the opposite might well be true.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.
>
> My plan was to station myself on one station that dates from the same era
> as the train, and is little changed from when
> such trains served it, and another that's completed different today.
>
> [snip]
>
> Here's my shots:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956

Fine shots indeed. I think my favourites are the ones around Park Royal -
the wooded approach and the receding ones against the wedding cake tiers of
the station building - very nicely composed.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:05:56 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 01.05.23 15:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 May 2023 13:50:02 +0100
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> follow it to another location. What swing it
>>>> for me was that the shiny new 1992 Hillingdon station is now looking a bit
>>>> tatty, and is actually in worse condition
>>>
>>> A lot of 80s and 90s architecture doesn't seem to have been built to last, at
>>
>>> least from a surface POV. Some of the docklands buildings from that era look
>>> absolutely knackered and in fact quite a lot has been demolished for all the
>>> new towers, whereas the converted warehouses still look mint.
>>
>> Comparing new buildings with those of a previous generation has a huge
>> survivorship bias in it. When buildings are built, a mix of well
>> designed, well built ones go up along with a whole load of cheap
>> garbage. Over time the cheap garbage gets replaced.
>
> Thats fair enough, but I was talking about to Barrett Homes. I lot of the
> buildings being demolished in docklands were supposedly built to last offices
> and warehouses. I will admit that the 80s stuff at canada square still looks
> ok from the outside but definately the exception to the rule.
>

With offices, some were built with ceilings too low to accommodate modern
cabling, aircon, etc. But, in general, a lot depends on the surface
materials: stone, brick and ceramic tiles age well, rough concrete, paint
and shiny plastic panels don't.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.
>>
>> My plan was to station myself on one station that dates from the same era
>> as the train, and is little changed from when
>> such trains served it, and another that's completed different today.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Here's my shots:
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956
>
> Fine shots indeed. I think my favourites are the ones around Park Royal -
> the wooded approach and the receding ones against the wedding cake tiers of
> the station building - very nicely composed.

Thanks, yes, I'm glad I chose that station, which turned out to be even
better than I expected.

I was surprised not to see any other photographers waiting for the train.

On Mon, 1 May 2023 15:36:27 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.
>>>
>>> My plan was to station myself on one station that dates from the same era
>>> as the train, and is little changed from when
>>> such trains served it, and another that's completed different today.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Here's my shots:
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956
>>
>> Fine shots indeed. I think my favourites are the ones around Park Royal -
>> the wooded approach and the receding ones against the wedding cake tiers of
>> the station building - very nicely composed.
>
>Thanks, yes, I'm glad I chose that station, which turned out to be even
>better than I expected.
>
>I was surprised not to see any other photographers waiting for the train.

Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so maybe
doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 15:36:27 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> My plan was to station myself on one station that dates from the same era
>>>> as the train, and is little changed from when
>>>> such trains served it, and another that's completed different today.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Here's my shots:
>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956
>>>
>>> Fine shots indeed. I think my favourites are the ones around Park Royal -
>>> the wooded approach and the receding ones against the wedding cake tiers of
>>> the station building - very nicely composed.
>>
>> Thanks, yes, I'm glad I chose that station, which turned out to be even
>> better than I expected.
>>
>> I was surprised not to see any other photographers waiting for the train.
>
> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so maybe
> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.

Yes, perhaps. But the tickets sold out very quickly.

It might be that all the really keen spotters were out on the first day,
whereas I left it till the second day of the BH weekend. Here's a video
I've found:
https://youtu.be/RIa8EG-Uzh8

Recliner wrote:

> I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.
>
>
> Here's my shots:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956

Nice photos... it's great too see those classic tube trains still
running on LT metals.

On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:23:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>whereas I left it till the second day of the BH weekend. Here's a video
>I've found:
>https://youtu.be/RIa8EG-Uzh8

Just out of interest, where is it normally stored, acton?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:23:48 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> whereas I left it till the second day of the BH weekend. Here's a video
>> I've found:
>> https://youtu.be/RIa8EG-Uzh8
>
> Just out of interest, where is it normally stored, acton?

Yes, I think so, in the Depot.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 15:36:27 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I went along to photograph the 38TS yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> My plan was to station myself on one station that dates from the same era
>>>> as the train, and is little changed from when
>>>> such trains served it, and another that's completed different today.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Here's my shots:
>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720307897956
>>>
>>> Fine shots indeed. I think my favourites are the ones around Park Royal -
>>> the wooded approach and the receding ones against the wedding cake tiers of
>>> the station building - very nicely composed.
>>
>> Thanks, yes, I'm glad I chose that station, which turned out to be even
>> better than I expected.
>>
>> I was surprised not to see any other photographers waiting for the train.
>
> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so maybe
> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>
>

The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
originally had.
Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
much more authentic features.

GH

On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so maybe
>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>
>>
>
>The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>originally had.
>Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>much more authentic features.

Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.

One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting in
salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
hell.

On 06/05/2023 10:04, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so maybe
>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>> originally had.
>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>> much more authentic features.
>
> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>
> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting in
> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
> hell.
>

Cost
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 06/05/2023 10:04, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so
>maybe
>>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>>> originally had.
>>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>>> much more authentic features.
>>
>> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>>
>> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
>> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting
>in
>> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
>> hell.
>>
>
>Cost

I can't imagine 7 miles of conductor rail costs that much particularly when
you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.

On 06/05/2023 15:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 06/05/2023 10:04, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so
>> maybe
>>>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>>>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>>>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>>>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>>>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>>>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>>>> originally had.
>>>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>>>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>>>> much more authentic features.
>>>
>>> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>>>
>>> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
>>> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting
>> in
>>> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
>>> hell.
>>>
>>
>> Cost
>
> I can't imagine 7 miles of conductor rail costs that much particularly when
> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>
>

It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 06/05/2023 15:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06/05/2023 10:04, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so
>>> maybe
>>>>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>>>>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>>>>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>>>>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>>>>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>>>>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>>>>> originally had.
>>>>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>>>>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>>>>> much more authentic features.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
>>>> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting
>>> in
>>>> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
>>>> hell.
>>>>
You don't get significant stray currents if you provide and maintain
an easier return path. On a pier you won't have wet ballast and soil
to leak through.

>>>
>>> Cost
>>
>> I can't imagine 7 miles of conductor rail costs that much particularly when
>> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>>
>>
>
>It does when your budget is nil in the first place.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so maybe
>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>> originally had.
>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>> much more authentic features.
>
> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>
> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting in
> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
> hell.
>
>

Wasn’t it done with bits left over from the Bournemouth Electrification?
One scheme originally considered was to convert the std stock to Diesel
Electric. with the engines and generators in the above floor equipment
compartment but tacking the the line onto the Bournemouth scheme made it
economic to electrify it.

I would have thought the pier sitting in salt water would have helped with
current going direct to ground (seabed ) quickly. The problem in London
was the leakage into other underground services such as gas,water pipes
and telephone cables which Ryde Pier hasn’t got around it.
The adjoining tramway was third rail at one time but converted to Petrol
and the Diesel Electric long before the heavy rail route.

Of course there was a considerable mileage of deep tube third rail up
until 1940 as the Central wasn’t converted to the 4 Rail system till then
and even there was the Waterloo and City which remained 3 rail till
transferred to and modernised by LT or whatever it was called at the time.
I wonder how they solved their leakage problems till then.

Some normal 4 rail stock was converted temporary to centre third before
the central line switchover
but I cannot recall if it was std or brand new 1938 stock.

GH

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/05/2023 15:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06/05/2023 10:04, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so
>>> maybe
>>>>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>>>>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>>>>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>>>>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>>>>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>>>>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>>>>> originally had.
>>>>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>>>>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>>>>> much more authentic features.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
>>>> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting
>>> in
>>>> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
>>>> hell.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cost
>>
>> I can't imagine 7 miles of conductor rail costs that much particularly when
>> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>>
>>
>
> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.

Also when the Southern Region had lots of skills, knowledge etc of 3rd rail
on tap in the mainland, whereas 4th rail expertise from LU would cost
money.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100

>particularly when
> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>
>
>
Converting the trains to third rail would have been relatively easy, as I
said upthread some was converted temporarily in 1940 when the much older
CLR stock was withdrawn but the centre third rail was still in use. As part
of the up grade the track and sleepers were also replaced and what would
become the negative rail used as the positive . once all the outer rail was
in place the system was switched to the LT standard and trains reverted to
normal .

GH

On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:52:51 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 06/05/2023 15:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 06/05/2023 10:04, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On 5 May 2023 18:51:18 GMT
>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Until recently you could ride on one any day of the week on the IOW so
>>>> maybe
>>>>>>> doesn't yet have the cache compared to other vintage trains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The alterations to the stock when they were refurbished for the I.O.W made
>>>>>> them quite different in some ways. It was good for their intended use and
>>>>>> resulted in some quite smart trains that belied there age but a lot of
>>>>>> original features were replaced such as the tungsten lighting and maple
>>>>>> slatted floors and if anything they were more similar internally to the
>>>>>> 1959/62 stock with lighter colour paint than the cerulean blue they
>>>>>> originally had.
>>>>>> Painting them red did not change that , in contrast the preserved unit used
>>>>>> for the tours is representative of how they operated in in LT service with
>>>>>> much more authentic features.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes they did change them but you still got the flavour of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing I never understood is why they didn't electrify the line to 4th
>>>>> rail instead of 3rd because the last thing you want on an iron pier sitting
>>>> in
>>>>> salt water is stray currents from the running rails corroding everything to
>>>>> hell.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cost
>>>
>>> I can't imagine 7 miles of conductor rail costs that much particularly when
>>> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>
>Also when the Southern Region had lots of skills, knowledge etc of 3rd rail
>on tap in the mainland, whereas 4th rail expertise from LU would cost
>money.
>
Tube lines also provided a ready made opportunistic conductor for
stray currents until the introduction of concrete tunnel segments. Had
tube lines come later in the sequence of the development of
electrified lines in and around London then you might have now had LU
sub-surface lines with OHLE, maybe even no tube lines.

On 6 May 2023 18:05:05 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
>
>>particularly when
>> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>>
>>
>>
>Converting the trains to third rail would have been relatively easy, as I
>said upthread some was converted temporarily in 1940 when the much older
>CLR stock was withdrawn but the centre third rail was still in use. As part
>of the up grade the track and sleepers were also replaced and what would
>become the negative rail used as the positive . once all the outer rail was
>in place the system was switched to the LT standard and trains reverted to
>normal .
>
The Central Line wasn't fully converted to LT/LU standards. The
positive conductor rail head is 40mm higher than on other Underground
lines with >40mm increased ground clearance.
https://www.lurs.org.uk/03_May_2020_UNDERGROUND_UPDATE.pdf
["Conductor Rail for Restricted Clearances".]

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 6 May 2023 18:05:05 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:03:17 +0100
>>
>>> particularly when
>>> you substract the cost of having to convert the trains to 3rd rail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Converting the trains to third rail would have been relatively easy, as I
>> said upthread some was converted temporarily in 1940 when the much older
>> CLR stock was withdrawn but the centre third rail was still in use. As part
>> of the up grade the track and sleepers were also replaced and what would
>> become the negative rail used as the positive . once all the outer rail was
>> in place the system was switched to the LT standard and trains reverted to
>> normal .
>>
> The Central Line wasn't fully converted to LT/LU standards. The
> positive conductor rail head is 40mm higher than on other Underground
> lines with >40mm increased ground clearance.
> https://www.lurs.org.uk/03_May_2020_UNDERGROUND_UPDATE.pdf
> ["Conductor Rail for Restricted Clearances".]
>

True, but then the Underground has more than one specification for its
conductor rails anyway
the most apparent to the casual observer being the difference between
rectangular tunnel section conductor rail used on the deep tube lines when
underground and the flat bottomed profile used elsewhere and now with
composite rails being introduced there are newer specifications such as
on the Northern Line extension to Nine Elms looking different to what has
gone before.
One unusual underground oddity used to be special insulator mounts which
allowed reuse of old bullhead running rail as conductor rail in depot areas
.. It can be seen this photo taken at Neasden

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/5805862356>

where I believe from a recent conversation elsewhere a small amount remains
in what are known as the Klondyke sidings .Lillie Bridge had a lot as well,
possibly still has.

GH