Modern Railways, June
1506
arrived. Among the items of particular interest to me, where the
article on Crossrail, and a beautiful picture of a 1930 stock tube
train on tour.
It seems that Crossrail opening is determined to be 2017. We can only
hope. I was living in London at the time of the, then, Fleet Line
(Jubilee Line phase one) construction. It
was a fairly short stretch from Baker Street to Charring Cross. But
construction seemed to last forever.
The artist's renderings of the stations looked very good. Tottenham
Court Road is very cramped these days. The new version appears to be
considerably larger.
Sadly taxpayer pounds are being spent on reversing sidings at
Maidenhead. One hopes Crossrail will run to Reading before many years
have passed.
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.
Later this week I will take a look at "Informed Sources".
.
Stephen O'Connell
> The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
> units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.
IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway. However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
1506
> 1506 wrote:>
> > The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
> > units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.
>
> IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
> certainly weren't red in my day anyway.
That sounds about right.
>However, that's only a minor
> nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
> livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. They were wonderful trains. They
almost define my years in London. Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
MIG
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.
d7...@hotmail.com
> > >However, that's only a minor
> > > nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
> > > livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
> > Indeed, I could not agree more. They were wonderful trains. They
> > almost define my years in London. Will there ever be another build of
> > subway trains as iconic?
> They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
> smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
> messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -
Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of ''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.
Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s - they do
look very similar externally and internally. I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.
I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. 38s and
62s they had no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.
--
Nick
MIG
I think people would mainly remember the colour. No 1959 or 1962
stock appeared in red till long after the 1938 stock was withdrawn.
Also, I don't think the 1938 stock could have been as bouncy ...
I used to know all the visual (not technical) differences between 1959
and 1962 (and C69 and C77) but the differences tended to be
obliterated with subsequent refurbishment and so on.
1506
that time was the Standards and the 1938. 1938 Stock had much cleaner
lines. OTOH, the oval windows on some Standard Stock cars were very
easy on the eye.
My experience was only as a passenger/enthusiast. I never knew that
the 1938 stock was a maintenance headache. Who would have known?
They seemed so solid.
d7...@hotmail.com
> They seemed so solid.
A MetroVick CoBo is also quite solid.
--
Nick
MIG
Don't forget the CO/CP stock on the District, which was rather red.
Stephen O'Connell
>
> Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
> hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
> right from the very start. When new they never attained the
> reliability of the late builds of ''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
> prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually much more
> reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
> equipment compartments above floor taking up space.
Unreliable? Yet some of them are still operating on the Isle of Weight
some 60 years after they were built! If that's unreliable, I hope I
still am at that age!!! :-)
> Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s - they do
> look very similar externally and internally. I wonder how many ''fond
> memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.
>
> I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
> difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
> and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
> incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. 38s and
> 62s they had no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
> bet they'd not know the details.
The curve of the roof at the front of the train would give it away as a
38. The 59 and 62's (and the three 56's) were different to look at from
the front, as the destination blind was at the top in the roof, although
the insides were similar. The 38's used to have the five headcode lights
too. But yes, people not interested in Underground trains might confuse
them.
I'm still fond of those trains!
Grumbling Appendix
"Stephen O'Connell" <no....@fk.u.com> wrote in message
news:h0m7ni$sf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
Peter Masson
"Grumbling Appendix" <grumblin...@null.com> wrote
>>> The 1938 tube train
>
> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
stock.
Peter
(old enough to have travelled to school on RFs and RTs)
Tim Fenton
"Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
>>
>> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
> I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
> stock.
Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
these had OLD nnn numberplates).
--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/
Tim Fenton
<d7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e2e01eb-3e23-4838...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> > They seemed so solid.
> A MetroVick CoBo is also quite solid.
Perhaps a little *too* solid ;-)
Christopher A. Lee
<timf...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com> wrote in message
>news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
>>>
>>> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
>> I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
>> stock.
>
>Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
>these had OLD nnn numberplates).
This was actually a pre-war design - you could recognise the pre-war
from the post-war because the former had route-number boxes front and
back but the latter only had them at the front or not at all. We used
to see them occasionally on the local routes when I was a kid.
Both the RT family (including RTL and RTW) and the RM family were long
lived, rugged and reliable vehicles many of which had an extended life
on provincial cities after withdrawal by London Transport. RMs were
the mainstay of of many of the independents athat sprung up after
deregulation.
Tim Fenton
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:am8v25hlvaa3v55g1...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
>>> I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
>>> stock.
>>
>>Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
>>these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>
> This was actually a pre-war design - you could recognise the pre-war
> from the post-war because the former had route-number boxes front and
> back but the latter only had them at the front or not at all. We used
> to see them occasionally on the local routes when I was a kid.
The pre-war vehicles were the 1RT and 2RT and ITYF they could be easily
distinguished by having a route number box above the top deck front windows.
The post war AEC chassis were 3RT, bodied by a variety of builders, but to
the same style.
> Both the RT family (including RTL and RTW) and the RM family were long
> lived, rugged and reliable vehicles many of which had an extended life
> on provincial cities after withdrawal by London Transport.
Actually, many of the RTL and RTW (6RT and 7RT) got withdrawn at the end of
the 1960s and were cut up, which was a bit of a waste, but then there had
been over 4,000 built, and it wouldn't have been possible to find new owners
for all those. Leyland, as well as providing the chassis for these, also
built at least some of the bodies.
> RMs were
> the mainstay of of many of the independents athat sprung up after
> deregulation.
There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second being
with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road, but needed
a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.
Peter Masson
"Tim Fenton" <timf...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second
> being with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road,
> but needed a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.
>
You do make me feel old. The RMs were billed as the replacement for
trolleybuses, and I was disappointed when the Bexleyheath trolleys were
replaced by RTs (on the 96, and by extending the 229 through to Woolwich by
the 698 route). My earliest RM journeys were on Red Rovers, starting 161
Chislehurst to Woolwich (RT), Woolwich Ferry, and an RM (route 69?) from
North Woolwich to Chingford.
Peter
MIG
> "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@btinternet.com> wrote
I think it could well be the 69.
I remember that we referred to the RMs on the 123 as "new buses".
Although, that was only relative to RTs on other routes like the 144
as it was then. I don't suppose they were that new really.
Peter Masson
"MIG" <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e076182-56dd-4b45...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
I'm now feeling really old. In November 1952 the 227 was shared between old
Scooters and new RFs. If both were lined up at Chislehurst Gordon Arms I'd
insist on going on the RF, even if the Scooter was due out first.
Peter
MIG
> "MIG" <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote in message
Now I'm feeling young ...
There was a local route with RFs that I did used to go on, which was
the 254. I remember the climb to get in: it was like a single decker
that only had a top deck and no bottom deck. I don't remember ever
going on them anywhere else, but I think they persisted at Kingston
for quite a long time.
I always liked the look of them though. And the noise.
Pat O'Neill
Dorking and before that I had a go with the re-geared one at Reigate on the
727, that could really motor.
d7...@hotmail.com
> > hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
> Unreliable? Yet some of them are still operating on the Isle of Weight
> some 60 years after they were built! If that's unreliable, I hope I
> still am at that age!!! :-)
:o) I take the joke ... but have to point out longevity is not the
same as reliability.
There may be a tenuous relationship in that something that has low
reliability may have a shorter than planned service life if a point is
reached where capital replacement is lower than maintenance (incl.
overhauls).
IOW is an artificial regime ... large fleet compared to traffic
requirements, unintensive service, very small dedicated operators as
well as engineers.
--
Nick
d7...@hotmail.com
> Actually, many of the RTL and RTW (6RT and 7RT) got withdrawn at the end of
> the 1960s and were cut up, which was a bit of a waste, but then there had
> been over 4,000 built, and it wouldn't have been possible to find new owners
Especially as double decker OMO became legal in 1968 (or thereabouts)
so no sane domestic operator would want a fleet of them, and R/H drive
second hand buses don't have huge export potential. Cue a long list of
where exLT buses and trollies have gone ... but the sum total is not
huge and extended over a long period.
--
Nick
Christopher A. Lee
<timf...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:am8v25hlvaa3v55g1...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
>>>> I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
>>>> stock.
>>>
>>>Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
>>>these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>>
>> This was actually a pre-war design - you could recognise the pre-war
>> from the post-war because the former had route-number boxes front and
>> back but the latter only had them at the front or not at all. We used
>> to see them occasionally on the local routes when I was a kid.
>
>The pre-war vehicles were the 1RT and 2RT and ITYF they could be easily
>distinguished by having a route number box above the top deck front windows.
>The post war AEC chassis were 3RT, bodied by a variety of builders, but to
>the same style.
Some of the post war RTs also had the route number box above the top
deck front windows. But the pre-war ones also had a similar box above
the top deck rear windows which none o fthe post war ones had.
>> Both the RT family (including RTL and RTW) and the RM family were long
>> lived, rugged and reliable vehicles many of which had an extended life
>> on provincial cities after withdrawal by London Transport.
>
>Actually, many of the RTL and RTW (6RT and 7RT) got withdrawn at the end of
>the 1960s and were cut up, which was a bit of a waste, but then there had
>been over 4,000 built, and it wouldn't have been possible to find new owners
>for all those. Leyland, as well as providing the chassis for these, also
>built at least some of the bodies.
>
>> RMs were
>> the mainstay of of many of the independents athat sprung up after
>> deregulation.
>
>There were two spells of RM operation in south Manchester, the second being
>with an independent. The RM was a good vehicle for Wilmslow Road, but needed
>a crew of two, and they were by now getting old.
I rode them in both Manchester and Glasgow, and saw them in other
cities.
Peter Beale
They even looked "modern" when they moved to the Isle of Wight - whereas
their predecessors, the standard stock, always looked old-fashioned
because of the clerestories.
Peter Beale
rail
"Tim Fenton" <timf...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com> wrote in message
> news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
> >>
> >> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
> > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
> > stock.
>
> Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
> these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>
I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
with us as the route was the 362.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Jim Brittin
ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <799j5vF...@mid.individual.net>
> "Tim Fenton" <timf...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
> > >>
> > >> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
> > > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
> > > stock.
> >
> > Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
> > these had OLD nnn numberplates).
> >
>
> I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
> with us as the route was the 362.
>
>
The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.
Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!
rail
Jim Brittin <pedigr...@ZZZZoperamail.com [wake up to reply]> wrote:
> In article <eecad16950%ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
> > In message <799j5vF...@mid.individual.net>
> > "Tim Fenton" <timf...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
> > > >>
> > > > > I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
> > > > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and
> > > > 62 stock.
> > >
> > > Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some
> > > of these had OLD nnn numberplates).
> > >
> >
> > I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was
> > favourite with us as the route was the 362.
> >
> >
> Don't think so, sir. Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.
How about 1959? I distinctly remember those two numbers. They operated out
of High Wycombe. The 362 route went via Hazlemere to Amersham.
>
> The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.
>
> Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!
I defer to your venerability :-)
1506
up to reply]> wrote:
> In article <eecad16950%r...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> r...@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
>
>
>
> > In message <799j5vF1q8l8...@mid.individual.net>
> > "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote in message
> > >news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
>
> > > >> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
> > > > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
> > > > stock.
>
> > > Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
> > > these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>
> > I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
> > with us as the route was the 362.
>
> Don't think so, sir. Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.
>
> The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.
>
> Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!
One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.
When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
vain.
D7666
> their predecessors, the standard stock, always looked old-fashioned
> because of the clerestories.
But today does clerestory roof tube stock look old ?
Modern tube stock with the externally hung doors - 1992/1995/1995
stock - have a very similar external appearance albeit for very
different reasons, although unlike standard stock it is not apparent
from the head on view.
I do think the 1995/1996 front ends seem to me sort of vaguely in a
way reminiscent of standards, and 1992 stock with the first CLR m.u.
sets. Perhaps its because there is little variation you can put into
tube stock front ends without doing something radical like centre
driving position [they already tried that] or assymetry.
--
Nick
Chris Tolley
> One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
> front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
> items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.
>
> When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
> vain.
Four days in London, photographing items of transport related interest,
and that amounted to only *one* film?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633074.html
(50 026 at London Waterloo, 1985)
Charles Ellson
<adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 2:59�pm, Jim Brittin <pedigreeZ...@ZZZZoperamail.com [wake
>up to reply]> wrote:
>> In article <eecad16950%r...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
>> r...@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In message <799j5vF1q8l8...@mid.individual.net>
>> > � � � � � "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
>>
>> > > >> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
>> > > > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
>> > > > stock.
>>
>> > > Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
>> > > these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>>
>> > I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
>> > with us as the route was the 362.
>>
>> Don't think so, sir. �Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.
>>
>> The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.
>>
>> Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!
>
>One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001"
>
If that was on the registration plate then it was not a valid number.
rail
Chris Tolley <cj.t...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote:
> 1506 wrote:
>
> > One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001" under the canopy in
> > front of Marylebone Station. I had spent four days photographing
> > items of railway and transportation interest in and around London.
> >
> > When I opened my camera the film had jammed. My efforts had been in
> > vain.
>
> Four days in London, photographing items of transport related interest,
> and that amounted to only *one* film?
>
Film was expensive in 1973!
1506
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:08:32 -0700 (PDT), 1506
>
>
>
>
>
> <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 11, 2:59 pm, Jim Brittin <pedigreeZ...@ZZZZoperamail.com [wake
> >up to reply]> wrote:
> >> In article <eecad16950%r...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> >> r...@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >> > In message <799j5vF1q8l8...@mid.individual.net>
> >> > "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
>
> >> > > >> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
> >> > > > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
> >> > > > stock.
>
> >> > > Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
> >> > > these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>
> >> > I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
> >> > with us as the route was the 362.
>
> >> Don't think so, sir. Still have a 1962 ABC to hand which has no 300's.
>
> >> The green ones were mainly 500's and 700's plus a few 600's and 800's.
>
> >> Now my school ones were JXN33 to 41 when new!
>
> >One time, about 1973, I photographed RT "OLD001"
>
> If that was on the registration plate then it was not a valid number.
>
>
Bill Hayles
wrote:
>In message <799j5vF...@mid.individual.net>
> "Tim Fenton" <timf...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peter Masson" <peter....@privacy.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfGdnWv4sqGs8bLX...@bt.com...
>> >>
>> >> I always thought of them as the Routemaster of the tube world!
>> > I'd have said the RT. RMs were more the contemporaries of the 59 and 62
>> > stock.
>>
>> Mind you, the RT was still in production in 1954 (paradoxically, some of
>> these had OLD nnn numberplates).
>>
>
>I used to go to school on either OLD345 or OLD362, the latter was favourite
>with us as the route was the 362.
In those days the same bus seemed to do the same duty every day. I went
to school on RT640 (JXC 448) which was always given the running number
DG36.
--
Bill Hayles
bil...@billnot.com
http://billnot.com
rail
Bill Hayles <gro...@billnot.com> wrote:
Seems logical though a bit boring for the crew. Got to know the
conductresses quite well. At the age of 13 I had quite a crush on one of the
younger ones.
Basil Jet
>
> In those days the same bus seemed to do the same duty every day. I
> went to school on RT640 (JXC 448) which was always given the running
> number DG36.
It sounds like they had way too many buses, if they were able to fit
maintenance around that.
Bill Hayles
There were times when it was another bus, but since routes 854 and 854a
didn't run on Sundays, that's when it could be maintained.
The only long absence I can remember is when it went for overhaul. When
it came back, it resumed its work, but how much of the original bus was
retained in the one returned (apart from the bonnet number) is anybody's
guess.
The 854 and 854a were my local routes, and I wrote to the Chief
Inspector at Dunton Green (Norman Gruber) to make sure RT640 was given
the duty on the very last day or operation of the 854 and 854a (30th
December 1966). I still have the letter, and when I applied for a job
at DG as a driver, Mr. Gruber was still the Chief Inspector and
remembered me well!
Dr. Sunil
> Yesterday when I stopped by my PMB, June Modern Railways had finally
> arrived. Among the items of particular interest to me, where the
> article on Crossrail, and a beautiful picture of a 1930 stock tube
> train on tour.
>
> It seems that Crossrail opening is determined to be 2017. We can only
> hope. I was living in London at the time of the, then, Fleet Line
> (Jubilee Line phase one) construction. It
> was a fairly short stretch from Baker Street to Charring Cross. But
> construction seemed to last forever.
>
> The artist's renderings of the stations looked very good. Tottenham
> Court Road is very cramped these days. The new version appears to be
> considerably larger.
>
> Sadly taxpayer pounds are being spent on reversing sidings at
> Maidenhead. One hopes Crossrail will run to Reading before many years
> have passed.
>
> The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
> units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.
>
> .
I took this pic at North Ealing last September:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1938_stock_at_North_Ealing.JPG
Pat O'Neill
"Dr. Sunil" <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:52b6d54c-5d87-4a80...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
And here's mine from the IOW a few weeks ago
http://patrickoneill204.fotopic.net/p58004152.html
1506
Thank you. This a truly special picture.
1506
> "Dr. Sunil" <dr_sunil060...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Thank you. Beautiful, keep them coming.