On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>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 CLR stock was withdrawn but the centre third rail was still in use.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.
>
The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
Central Line without modification.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
> location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
> diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
> Central Line without modification.

I think it still does. The line has its own RATs which, I think, don't work
on other lines.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
>> location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
>> diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
>> Central Line without modification.
>
> I think it still does. The line has its own RATs which, I think, don't work
> on other lines.
>
>

Yes, Central Line is only usable by stock with suitable shoegear (some
vehicles have shoegear which can run at standard height or central line
height).

Central Line is the only tube-profile line which has RATs; on the
Piccadilly Line AIUI two normal trains are taken out of service during leaf
fall season and have temporary sandite gear fitted. I don't know the
arrangement for the Northern Line.

Similarly on the SSL network, only the Metropolitan Line has RATs, again
I'm not sure of the arrangement for the District and Hammersmith lines.

IIRC the Track Recording Train has adjustable shoegear [1] as do some of
the fleet of electric locomotives.

[1] The TRT can operate over all lines, I think (W&C excepted, obviously),
though it's not fitted with the in-cab signalling for the SSL network and
as such it can now only operate there during overnight engineering
possessions.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
>>> location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
>>> diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
>>> Central Line without modification.
>>
>> I think it still does. The line has its own RATs which, I think, don't work
>> on other lines.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, Central Line is only usable by stock with suitable shoegear (some
> vehicles have shoegear which can run at standard height or central line
> height).
>
> Central Line is the only tube-profile line which has RATs; on the
> Piccadilly Line AIUI two normal trains are taken out of service during leaf
> fall season and have temporary sandite gear fitted. I don't know the
> arrangement for the Northern Line.
>
> Similarly on the SSL network, only the Metropolitan Line has RATs, again
> I'm not sure of the arrangement for the District and Hammersmith lines.

I think the Met RATs also cover the above-ground western Piccadilly tracks.
Presumably they can also cover the District tracks as well, if needed?

>
> IIRC the Track Recording Train has adjustable shoegear [1] as do some of
> the fleet of electric locomotives.
>
> [1] The TRT can operate over all lines, I think (W&C excepted, obviously),
> though it's not fitted with the in-cab signalling for the SSL network and
> as such it can now only operate there during overnight engineering
> possessions.

Wouldn't that apply to all ATO lines?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
>>>> location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
>>>> diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
>>>> Central Line without modification.
>>>
>>> I think it still does. The line has its own RATs which, I think, don't work
>>> on other lines.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Central Line is only usable by stock with suitable shoegear (some
>> vehicles have shoegear which can run at standard height or central line
>> height).
>>
>> Central Line is the only tube-profile line which has RATs; on the
>> Piccadilly Line AIUI two normal trains are taken out of service during leaf
>> fall season and have temporary sandite gear fitted. I don't know the
>> arrangement for the Northern Line.
>>
>> Similarly on the SSL network, only the Metropolitan Line has RATs, again
>> I'm not sure of the arrangement for the District and Hammersmith lines.
>
> I think the Met RATs also cover the above-ground western Piccadilly tracks.
> Presumably they can also cover the District tracks as well, if needed?
>
>>
>> IIRC the Track Recording Train has adjustable shoegear [1] as do some of
>> the fleet of electric locomotives.
>>
>> [1] The TRT can operate over all lines, I think (W&C excepted, obviously),
>> though it's not fitted with the in-cab signalling for the SSL network and
>> as such it can now only operate there during overnight engineering
>> possessions.
>
> Wouldn't that apply to all ATO lines?
>
>

It's fitted with some versions of cab signalling to allow it to run on
those lines, but not with the SSL version.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
>>>>> location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
>>>>> diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
>>>>> Central Line without modification.
>>>>
>>>> I think it still does. The line has its own RATs which, I think, don't work
>>>> on other lines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Central Line is only usable by stock with suitable shoegear (some
>>> vehicles have shoegear which can run at standard height or central line
>>> height).
>>>
>>> Central Line is the only tube-profile line which has RATs; on the
>>> Piccadilly Line AIUI two normal trains are taken out of service during leaf
>>> fall season and have temporary sandite gear fitted. I don't know the
>>> arrangement for the Northern Line.
>>>
>>> Similarly on the SSL network, only the Metropolitan Line has RATs, again
>>> I'm not sure of the arrangement for the District and Hammersmith lines.
>>
>> I think the Met RATs also cover the above-ground western Piccadilly tracks.
>> Presumably they can also cover the District tracks as well, if needed?
>>
>>>
>>> IIRC the Track Recording Train has adjustable shoegear [1] as do some of
>>> the fleet of electric locomotives.
>>>
>>> [1] The TRT can operate over all lines, I think (W&C excepted, obviously),
>>> though it's not fitted with the in-cab signalling for the SSL network and
>>> as such it can now only operate there during overnight engineering
>>> possessions.
>>
>> Wouldn't that apply to all ATO lines?
>>
>>
>
> It's fitted with some versions of cab signalling to allow it to run on
> those lines, but not with the SSL version.
>

Ah, that's interesting, because I didn't think the systems were mutually
compatible. Presumably it has to run in some sort of restricted manual
mode?

On Sun, 7 May 2023 16:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 May 2023 07:31:19 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relevant feature is not the type of rail rather than the relative
>>>>>> location of the top surface (which in turn is a consequence of tunnel
>>>>>> diameter). This affects (or affected?) which stock can travel over the
>>>>>> Central Line without modification.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it still does. The line has its own RATs which, I think, don't work
>>>>> on other lines.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Central Line is only usable by stock with suitable shoegear (some
>>>> vehicles have shoegear which can run at standard height or central line
>>>> height).
>>>>
>>>> Central Line is the only tube-profile line which has RATs; on the
>>>> Piccadilly Line AIUI two normal trains are taken out of service during leaf
>>>> fall season and have temporary sandite gear fitted. I don't know the
>>>> arrangement for the Northern Line.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly on the SSL network, only the Metropolitan Line has RATs, again
>>>> I'm not sure of the arrangement for the District and Hammersmith lines.
>>>
>>> I think the Met RATs also cover the above-ground western Piccadilly tracks.
>>> Presumably they can also cover the District tracks as well, if needed?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC the Track Recording Train has adjustable shoegear [1] as do some of
>>>> the fleet of electric locomotives.
>>>>
>>>> [1] The TRT can operate over all lines, I think (W&C excepted, obviously),
>>>> though it's not fitted with the in-cab signalling for the SSL network and
>>>> as such it can now only operate there during overnight engineering
>>>> possessions.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that apply to all ATO lines?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's fitted with some versions of cab signalling to allow it to run on
>> those lines, but not with the SSL version.
>>
>
>Ah, that's interesting, because I didn't think the systems were mutually
>compatible. Presumably it has to run in some sort of restricted manual
>mode?
>
RATs are not full length trains so a quick and dirty bodge is
presumably to haul them with a suitably-equipped battery locomotive if
they lack the required interface with the signalling system of a
"foreign" line.

On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It does when your budget is nil in the first place.

Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
have been a significant cost.

On 6 May 2023 17:17:50 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><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.

Considering the shoe-horning and hassle that went into modifying the 319s and
the D stock to take smallish diesel engines in the 2020s perhaps its a good
thing they didn't try it in the 1980s.

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.

There's nothing special about the 4th rail so why would they need LU
expertise?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> There's nothing special about the 4th rail so why would they need LU
> expertise?
>
>

Isn’t the Island Line an ideal candidate to convert to battery operation?

On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>
> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
> have been a significant cost.
>
>

What work was that?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/05/2023 09:10, Tweed wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> There's nothing special about the 4th rail so why would they need LU
>> expertise?
>>
>>
>
> Isn’t the Island Line an ideal candidate to convert to battery operation?
>

Too expensive. I suspect the next conversion for the IoW will be total
closure.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:25:04 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>>
>> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
>> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
>> have been a significant cost.
>>
>>
>
>What work was that?

Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.

On 08/05/2023 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:25:04 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>>>
>>> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
>>> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
>>> have been a significant cost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What work was that?
>
> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>
>

AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
show semaphore signals
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 6 May 2023 17:17:50 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <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.
>
> Considering the shoe-horning and hassle that went into modifying the 319s and
> the D stock to take smallish diesel engines in the 2020s perhaps its a good
> thing they didn't try it in the 1980s.
>
>
>

It would have been the 1960’s and with the equipment compartment of the std
tube stock that went over as the first batch of tube cars to the Island the
engine the amount of shoe horning would have been far less as the switch
compartment was above the sole bar.
Think of a smaller version of a class 201 or its brethren known as thumpers
which the SR was operating and very familiar with.

The area concerned was the bit behind the grill in this picture and you
could have taken a bit more
of the passenger saloon with the trains then being full length 3 and 4 car
sets unlike the 1938 conversions which were reduced to 2 cars.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtw501/30522344018>

This is one of the more informative articles on the tube stock for the
I.O.W proposals which had started before the Beeching report shrunk the
system further than anticipated.
Some interesting “what could have beens”.

< https://www.bloodandcustard.com/BR-7VECTIS.html>

GH

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/05/2023 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:25:04 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
>>>> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
>>>> have been a significant cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What work was that?
>>
>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>
>>
>
> AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
> the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
> tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
> show semaphore signals

Don’t about the original std stock but I believe the 1938 had its ride
height adjusted to be a couple of inches higher and over the years the
ballast became higher , to get the level required for step 3 access for the
latest converted D stock some platforms have have been raised as they were
quite low in the first place.

PS , You meant Bournemouth Electrification of course, Weymouth had to wait
for for another decade or two and itself was partly done on the cheap by
using bits recovered from elsewhere.

GH

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>
>>
>
> AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
> the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
> tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
> show semaphore signals

Ryde St Johns Road still has a couple I believe despite the
refurbishment,certainly there are plenty of of pictures and videos showing
the ex D stock passing them.
Perhaps part of the work this Spring was to finally replace them.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
>> the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
>> tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
>> show semaphore signals
>
> Ryde St Johns Road still has a couple I believe despite the
> refurbishment,certainly there are plenty of of pictures and videos showing
> the ex D stock passing them.
> Perhaps part of the work this Spring was to finally replace them.
>
>

No, the semaphores at Ryde St John's Road remain.

When the line was initially converted to 3rd rail I think there were also
semaphores at Brading, Sandown and Shanklin. I think they were removed in
the late 1980s.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/05/2023 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:25:04 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
>>>> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
>>>> have been a significant cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What work was that?
>>
>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>
>>
>
> AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
> the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
> tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
> show semaphore signals

"Electrification involved raising the track level to allow the lower floors
of the Tube stock to meet on the level with platforms."

<https://www.kentrail.org.uk/shanklin_2.htm>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/05/2023 09:10, Tweed wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There's nothing special about the 4th rail so why would they need LU
>>> expertise?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Isn’t the Island Line an ideal candidate to convert to battery operation?
>>
>
> Too expensive. I suspect the next conversion for the IoW will be total
> closure.
>

That won’t play well with politics, regardless of the economic case.

On Mon, 8 May 2023 10:11:52 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 08/05/2023 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:25:04 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
>>>> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
>>>> have been a significant cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What work was that?
>>
>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>
>>
>
>AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
>the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was

No you didn't, the platforms were all more or less level tube level.

On 8 May 2023 10:25:02 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Considering the shoe-horning and hassle that went into modifying the 319s
>and
>> the D stock to take smallish diesel engines in the 2020s perhaps its a good
>> thing they didn't try it in the 1980s.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It would have been the 1960’s and with the equipment compartment of the std
>tube stock that went over as the first batch of tube cars to the Island the
>engine the amount of shoe horning would have been far less as the switch
>compartment was above the sole bar.

Fair enough, I was thinking of the 38 stock. Fitting diesel engines into
them would be fun. Would probably have to have it above the frame in a
special compartment built out of the passenger compartment just like the
standard stock.

On 08/05/2023 12:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>>>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
>>> the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
>>> tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
>>> show semaphore signals
>>
>> Ryde St Johns Road still has a couple I believe despite the
>> refurbishment,certainly there are plenty of of pictures and videos showing
>> the ex D stock passing them.
>> Perhaps part of the work this Spring was to finally replace them.
>>
>>
>
> No, the semaphores at Ryde St John's Road remain.
>
> When the line was initially converted to 3rd rail I think there were also
> semaphores at Brading, Sandown and Shanklin. I think they were removed in
> the late 1980s.
>
>

I can confirm they were there at all four places into the mid-70s. For
some reason my later photos don't have any signals visible.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/05/2023 12:55, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/05/2023 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:25:04 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2023 09:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:16:45 +0100
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> It does when your budget is nil in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the amount of other works they needed to do to convert to
>>>>> electrification such as raising track/lowering platforms etc it wouldn't
>>>>> have been a significant cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What work was that?
>>>
>>> Like I said, platform heights. Then the cost of installing substations and
>>> I imagine the coloured light signalling went in at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> AFAIR no work was done on station platforms, you had to step down into
>> the tube stock. As others have pointed out the electrical work was
>> tagged onto the Weymouth electrifcation scheme. My mid 70s photos still
>> show semaphore signals
>
> "Electrification involved raising the track level to allow the lower floors
> of the Tube stock to meet on the level with platforms."
>
> <https://www.kentrail.org.uk/shanklin_2.htm>
>
>

I've photos at St John's Road and Brading that clearly shows the
difference in levels in 1974. In 1991 at Pier Head there was a level
entrance. So it looks like raising the track was more of an on-going
process than a step-change (sorry!).

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.