|
|
Post by westernpathfinder on May 6, 2019 20:34:53 GMT
Hello can any one let me know if 1506 2506 9507 1507 are visable at Hainault depot please thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on May 6, 2019 20:38:16 GMT
Hello can any one let me know if 1506 2506 9507 1507 are visable at epping depot please thank you Epping depot? Do you mean Hainault depot? EDIT: Ah - I see you've corrected yourself......  |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on May 7, 2019 9:57:20 GMT
No it’s not visible from a passing train. It’s round the back so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 8, 2019 19:39:49 GMT
What sort of condition are they in?
This may upset some people but would it be financially feasible to convert to 'one person operation' (opo) and the minimum level of automated train control compatibility for use on the Hainault Woodford shuttle (asked with the possibility of this shuttle returning in mind, so as to release trains for upgrade works).
notes:
1) if possible then to reduce costs opo fitting could leave the not-used guards panels by single leaf DM doors intact
2) if its acceptable for trains carrying passengers then the same level of automation compatability as exists for the 1962ts rail adhesion trains
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on May 8, 2019 20:06:31 GMT
What sort of condition are they in? This may upset some people but would it be financially feasible to convert to 'one person operation' (opo) and the minimum level of automated train control compatibility for use on the Hainault Woodford shuttle (asked with the possibility of this shuttle returning in mind, so as to release trains for upgrade works). notes: 1) if possible then to reduce costs opo fitting could leave the not-used guards panels by single leaf DM doors intact 2) if its acceptable for trains carrying passengers then the same level of automation compatability as exists for the 1962ts rail adhesion trains I fear you are trying to flog a dead horse. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on May 8, 2019 20:28:56 GMT
What sort of condition are they in? This may upset some people but would it be financially feasible to convert to 'one person operation' (opo) and the minimum level of automated train control compatibility for use on the Hainault Woodford shuttle (asked with the possibility of this shuttle returning in mind, so as to release trains for upgrade works). notes: 1) if possible then to reduce costs opo fitting could leave the not-used guards panels by single leaf DM doors intact 2) if its acceptable for trains carrying passengers then the same level of automation compatability as exists for the 1962ts rail adhesion trains I fear you are trying to flog a dead horse. Indeed. And this was discussed not so long ago elsewhere on the forum, so let’s not go there again.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on May 8, 2019 20:42:15 GMT
spsmiler, With regards to condition, it has been cosmetically restored to its original appearance but it has certainly not been in any operational condition for a number of years.
|
|
|
|
Post by sem34090 on May 8, 2019 21:22:19 GMT
Please excuse my ignorance, but I wasn't aware of a preserved '62 stock set?!
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on May 8, 2019 21:35:34 GMT
Please excuse my ignorance, but I wasn't aware of a preserved '62 stock set?! You’re certainly not the only one. I myself often forget about it. It’s something of a rarity for a London Underground item of rolling stock to be privately preserved but still kept on home metals. The set is owned by Craven Heritage Trains who also operate the preserved 1960/38 composite unit that formerly operated the Woodford and Ongar shuttles which has had far greater exposure in recent years including venturing back to Ongar with much documented attention stemming from this. In comparison, the 1962 stock unit has lain relatively untouched post restoration and I can’t recall an occasion in the past twenty years when it was put on public display. Sad really, because I’m sure that a lot of dedicated work must have gone to preserving the unit as is the case in most preservation projects. But I guess since these units don’t fall fully within the remit of the London Transport Museum, they don’t get the kind of audience that the 1938 stock gets for example. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 9:58:51 GMT
I am over-the-moon about a 4-car unit of 1962 TS having been preserved, as it is one of my all-time favourites. I hope that some day soon it will be fully restored to full working order, and provide special day trips to enthusiasts. From a design perspective the 1962 TS is essentially 1938 TS Mk2. The ambience of the 1938 TS is better as it’s made up of low wattage tungsten light bulbs, which harmonises and compliments the colour scheme of the green interior. However, where the 1938 TS fails and the 1962 TS succeeds is the transverse seating in the centre bays, the arrangements of which was much better on the 1962 TS. Another improvement over the 1938 TS regarding the design is the horizontal section of the emergency doors as these were straight, and squared off at 90 degrees unlike on the 1938 TS. Thus I can’t understand why the 1938 TS is more favoured over the 1962 TS. Did the 1938 TS sound any different from the 1962 TS?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Oct 7, 2019 11:28:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 7, 2019 18:17:10 GMT
I am over-the-moon about a 4-car unit of 1962 TS having been preserved, as it is one of my all-time favourites. I hope that some day soon it will be fully restored to full working order, and provide special day trips to enthusiasts. From a design perspective the 1962 TS is essentially 1938 TS Mk2. The ambience of the 1938 TS is better as it’s made up of low wattage tungsten light bulbs, which harmonises and compliments the colour scheme of the green interior. However, where the 1938 TS fails and the 1962 TS succeeds is the transverse seating in the centre bays, the arrangements of which was much better on the 1962 TS. Another improvement over the 1938 TS regarding the design is the horizontal section of the emergency doors as these were straight, and squared off at 90 degrees unlike on the 1938 TS. Thus I can’t understand why the 1938 TS is more favoured over the 1962 TS. Did the 1938 TS sound any different from the 1962 TS? If (a very big if) it was restored to an operational condition, where could it be operated? Sorry but we now have to live with a digital railway. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 7, 2019 19:15:25 GMT
If the Hainault - Woodford service is (temporarily) converted back to a shuttle, so as to release trains for refurbishment, then this unit could help out (maybe also the 1938 stock tube train)!
Apart from that, and thinking longer term, if fitted with batteries it could run on preserved railways almost anywhere. Realistically speaking this is the only viable solution - yes it might be nice to install electrified rails but I think most people here understand how there is more chance of the month of February having a 30th day than a preserved / museum railway being allowed to have electric rails that really are 'live' (non energised rails which are only there for visual effect would be a very different story).
My thoughts turn to what has been done with a preserved historic Parisian metro train which is now used on a museum railway.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Oct 7, 2019 19:21:45 GMT
If the Hainault - Woodford service is (temporarily) converted back to a shuttle, so as to release trains for refurbishment, then this unit could help out (maybe also the 1938 stock tube train)! I assume you’re going to be paying for the 1938/62 stock to be fitted with ATP then, Simon, or for the signalling on the Woodford-Hainault section to be returned to legacy? 🤦🏼♀️ |
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 7, 2019 19:53:54 GMT
I am over-the-moon about a 4-car unit of 1962 TS having been preserved, as it is one of my all-time favourites. I hope that some day soon it will be fully restored to full working order, and provide special day trips to enthusiasts. From a design perspective the 1962 TS is essentially 1938 TS Mk2. The ambience of the 1938 TS is better as it’s made up of low wattage tungsten light bulbs, which harmonises and compliments the colour scheme of the green interior. However, where the 1938 TS fails and the 1962 TS succeeds is the transverse seating in the centre bays, the arrangements of which was much better on the 1962 TS. Another improvement over the 1938 TS regarding the design is the horizontal section of the emergency doors as these were straight, and squared off at 90 degrees unlike on the 1938 TS. Thus I can’t understand why the 1938 TS is more favoured over the 1962 TS. Did the 1938 TS sound any different from the 1962 TS? 1938TS has probably won favour in part just because it was the first fleet of that style of construction and appearance.
Somewhat as a well preserved/restored Mk1 E-type Jag will be valued higher than a similar condition later long wheelbase one. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 7, 2019 22:43:32 GMT
If the Hainault - Woodford service is (temporarily) converted back to a shuttle, so as to release trains for refurbishment, then this unit could help out (maybe also the 1938 stock tube train)! I assume you’re going to be paying for the 1938/62 stock to be fitted with ATP then, Simon, or for the signalling on the Woodford-Hainault section to be returned to legacy? 🤦🏼♀️ When my financial ship arrives then quote possibly yes, although maybe only up to the same level as the 1962ts RAT trains. The funds have to arrive first. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 8, 2019 0:07:17 GMT
Apart from that, and thinking longer term, if fitted with batteries it could run on preserved railways almost anywhere. Realistically speaking this is the only viable solution - yes it might be nice to install electrified rails but I think most people here understand how there is more chance of the month of February having a 30th day than a preserved / museum railway being allowed to have electric rails that really are 'live' (non energised rails which are only there for visual effect would be a very different story). It's not impossible - Volk's Electric Railway in Brighton uses live third rails for traction current, although only at 110 volts rather than the 630 volts (I presume) a 1962 sock would require. As I understand things, there is a "presumption against" new third (and fourth) rail installations there is no prohibition if there is a good justification and suitable safety case - as the East London and Northern line extensions show, and would also have applied to the Croxley link had it been built. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Oct 8, 2019 8:57:38 GMT
Apart from that, and thinking longer term, if fitted with batteries it could run on preserved railways almost anywhere. Realistically speaking this is the only viable solution - yes it might be nice to install electrified rails but I think most people here understand how there is more chance of the month of February having a 30th day than a preserved / museum railway being allowed to have electric rails that really are 'live' (non energised rails which are only there for visual effect would be a very different story). It's not impossible - Volk's Electric Railway in Brighton uses live third rails for traction current, although only at 110 volts rather than the 630 volts (I presume) a 1962 sock would require. As I understand things, there is a "presumption against" new third (and fourth) rail installations there is no prohibition if there is a good justification and suitable safety case - as the East London and Northern line extensions show, and would also have applied to the Croxley link had it been built. Really grandfather rights. Anything over 50 volts can kill & DC keeps you in contact. Very dangerous. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 8, 2019 9:48:35 GMT
The point is that if you have a good reason to use third rail and appropriate systems to keep people as safe as possible near it then it is allowed. It would be very difficult for a preserved railway to have both of those, but not impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 8, 2019 21:26:05 GMT
The point is that if you have a good reason to use third rail and appropriate systems to keep people as safe as possible near it then it is allowed. It would be very difficult for a preserved railway to have both of those, but not impossible. Converting to the French APS system created for trams would allow a sort of third and fourth rail to be used but I question if it would be feasible - especially financially. This system breaks the live rails down to short segments so that they are only ever below the tram - at other times the rails are not energised. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Oct 8, 2019 21:37:08 GMT
LT (or was it the LCC?) tried a system called "Stud Contact" which used the same principle...an attempt to avoid overhead wires in Town...it was dropped in favour of the Conduit system because of reliability issues with switching power to the studs on and off,as I recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 9, 2019 6:35:03 GMT
I'm not aware of either the LCC or any other system taken over by London Transport using the stud system. Mr Wiki lists only five in the UK - Hastings, Lincoln, Mexborough/Swinton, Torquay, and Wolverhampton - and four in France. LT built no new trams of its own.
As well as the difficulties of studs failing to energise or de-energise, there was also the problem of the magnets used to switch them on and off attracting metallic debris and causing short circuits. Gas escapes into the conduit could also be ignited by arcing of the switches.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 9, 2019 7:52:41 GMT
The LCC conduit system was designed as conduit from the start.
I have heard it said that, should it prove unworkable, the conduit could be used for cable traction; a bizarre reversal of the situation in New York City.
Surface-contact (stud) has been proposed for railways, although I can't think of an actual working example.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 9, 2019 10:00:39 GMT
The LCC conduit system was designed as conduit from the start. I have heard it said that, should it prove unworkable, the conduit could be used for cable traction; a bizarre reversal of the situation in New York City. Surface-contact (stud) has been proposed for railways, although I can't think of an actual working example. Doesn't the tram system in Bordeaux use a type of stud system? |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Oct 9, 2019 10:25:53 GMT
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 9, 2019 11:20:09 GMT
Just a gentle reminder to steer the discussion back on the 1962 stock please.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 9, 2019 13:34:39 GMT
Slugabed, Many thanks for such an interesting article. |
|
