XPost: uk.railway   
   From: rail@greywall.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 15/12/2017 00:45, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:   
   > We have in the past spoken on this newsgroup about various solutions to   
   > replace the Island Line' 38ts, such as further cascading older LUL stock   
   > or even something new like the Class 132.   
   >   
   > It seems that the problem is that many of these discussions look at the   
   > domestic market for replacements. And it so far doesn't appear that   
   > there are many feasible solutions.   
   >   
   > What if DfT, TOC or whichever body responsible for addressing such   
   > issues took a different approach and acquired cascaded equipment from   
   > abroad?   
   >   
   > One option might be to look across the Pond to New York City's   
   > Metropolitan Transportation Authority and see if they have anything from   
   > the Subway that would be easy to make compatible for the Island Line.   
   >   
   > I was actually thinking of the R-62/R-62A, which runs on the Subway's A   
   > division (IRT). They entered revenue service in the 1980s, they run well   
   > and they have had a good service record.   
   >   
   > The R-62/R-62A also have stainless steel bodies, fiberglass caps,   
   > tripcocks, over-riding shoes, plus they runs off a similar DC voltage   
   > and can easily achieve the 45 mile track speed.   
   >   
   > There are differences that interested parties would need to keep in   
   > mind, naturally; The helm is on the cab's right side and the controls   
   > have a different configuration than what you normally see here, with   
   > controller and brake valve respectively on the left and right.   
   >   
   > I don't think that this really poses a problem, however, as they would   
   > run on an isolate and not interact with anything else, thus avoiding   
   > potential conflicts.   
   >   
   > The R-62/R-62A's platform height of 1.11 metres also might pose a   
   > challenge under the Island Line's current set up, though I understand   
   > that they need to relay the entire ROW in any event.   
   >   
   > The key question, of course, is whether such trains will get through the   
   > tunnel unscathed. I don't know the tunnel's gauge, though the R-62/R-62A   
   > have a respective length, width and height or 15.56m, 2,621mm and 3,624mm.   
   >   
   > (I would certainly not recommend any rolling stock from the Subway's   
   > B1-B2 (BMT/IND) divisions as they are wider and longer.)   
   >   
   > Another alternative to the R-62/R-62A would be the PA4s on PATH, which   
   > run between New York City and northern New Jersey. Those trains went   
   > into service in the mid- to late-80s and are shorter height- as well as   
   > length-wise, due to narrower gauges in their tunnels.   
   >   
   > The PA4 also has stainless steel bodies and over-riding shoes.   
   >   
   > It's also worth noting that PATH trains conform to FRA standards,   
   > whereas NYC Subway trains do not.   
   >   
   > The main problem with the PA4, however, is that PATH decommissioned them   
   > between 2009 and 2011 in favour of the PA5s. I would imagine that they   
   > sold some for scrap, but I wonder if they kept and mothballed some of   
   > them. If the latter, then would there be enough for the Island Line? Are   
   > those trains just stabled in the corner of some yard, neglected and   
   > exposed to the elements, or are they under conservation of some sort?   
   >   
   > PATH might even be willing to let the PA4s go for a modest fee, maybe to   
   > even include FOB   
   >   
   > I wonder if the MTA would be willing to sell any R-62/R-62A, however,   
   > since the authority appear to actually like them. Cost could become an   
   > issue in that case.   
      
      
   Too big, almost certainly.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Graeme Wall   
   This account not read.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)