XPost: uk.railway
On 15.12.17 1:32, Recliner wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> I think that homologation in any case would not be difficult.
>>
>> Newly cascaded rolling stock for the Island Line does necessarily need
>> to come from North America; Does Berlin have any Giselas still running
>> around? The Stockholm T-Bana has some C-series trains, though they are
>> based on earlier R-series trains from the New York City Subway's A
>> divisions, and I don't know if they would clear the tunnel.
>>
>> Giselas or a C-series trains also don't have trip cocks, AIUI, meaning
>> more installation work on the trains and/or a new train protection
>> system.
>>
>> I have no personal interest in this. But I think that relevant parties
>> need to start thinking outside of the box if they are serious about
>> finding a solution to the the Island Line's current situation.
>>
>
> I can't comment on how suitable those New York trains would be for the
> Island Line (I strongly suspect they're too tall),
I don't know what the gauge is on the tunnel,
> I think you're
> absolutely right that the cascade options shouldn't be limited to the UK.
It certainly will need to be, considering the current local options;
AIUI, the 72ts is pretty much on its last legs in any event.
The 76ts would be feasible only if the ROW undergoes a regauging. They
would also possibly need to retrofit tripcocks on the rolling stock,
which would mean going into the undercarriages and installing pilot
valves -- time- and labour-intensive.
A PPM-class train would need to be a very expensive bespoke job, since
the existing prototype cannot attain the 45-mile trackspeed. But that's
irrelevant anyway as, IIRC, the producer of that equipment is out of
business.
That's why I think that cascaded equipment from elsewhere would be good.
And I was thinking of the New York City Subway or PATH as I believe that
homolgation would be much easier. They're good trains, plus, their
safety systems are very similar.
What's the deal with the T-series tram idea out of Manchester, BTW?
Something indeed does need to happen, because I fear that this is what
will eventually happen with the 38ts.
https://youtu.be/L8hX2Ex58os
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
