On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0700 (PDT), D7666 
wrote:

>On Jul 2, 10:40 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I am not familiar with that stock.  Is it the new stock for the
>> Metropolitan and District Lines?
>
>Yep.
>
>I've no idea on dimensions actual or c.f. 507/508.
>
>More a cooment to stir things up in here !!!
>
The widest point of S stock is probably going to be at floor level
which might be incompatible with any bored tunnels or the trackside
equipment within. The warnings when CO/CP stuck were sent to Quainton
were IIRC CAWSTAB and LACER (main plain English translation was to be
cautious passing through platforms and not to use any crossovers
within) so S stock with the corners and step-plates "trimmed" might
live happily if a local "outsize" loading gauge (like Chiltern
routes?) can be maintained.

Charles Ellson  wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0700 (PDT), D7666 
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 2, 10:40 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I am not familiar with that stock.  Is it the new stock for the
>>> Metropolitan and District Lines?
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>I've no idea on dimensions actual or c.f. 507/508.
>>
>>More a cooment to stir things up in here !!!
>>
>The widest point of S stock is probably going to be at floor level
>which might be incompatible with any bored tunnels or the trackside
>equipment within. The warnings when CO/CP stuck were sent to Quainton
>were IIRC CAWSTAB and LACER (main plain English translation was to be
>cautious passing through platforms and not to use any crossovers
>within) so S stock with the corners and step-plates "trimmed" might
>live happily if a local "outsize" loading gauge (like Chiltern
>routes?) can be maintained.


The Class 313/507/508 family of PEP-based EMUs is wider than the
Mk3-based EMU classes including the 319s.  The S stock design might
therefore have something to offer Merseyrail.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:10:07 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>The Class 313/507/508 family of PEP-based EMUs is wider than the
>Mk3-based EMU classes including the 319s

Is it really?  It doesn't feel like.  Perhaps it's because the wide
bit is quite low down (these units almost have a "tilt profile").

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:10:07 +0100, Tony Polson
>  wrote:
> 
>>The Class 313/507/508 family of PEP-based EMUs is wider than the
>>Mk3-based EMU classes including the 319s
> 
> Is it really?  It doesn't feel like.  Perhaps it's because the wide
> bit is quite low down (these units almost have a "tilt profile").

I have heard it said that the PEP stuff is wider, but if you look at the 
455 with 508 trailers, the PEP trailers seem no wider than the Mk3 
vehicles of the rest of the unit.  Anyone have figures?

Robin

R.C. Payne wrote:
> I have heard it said that the PEP stuff is wider, but if you look at the 
> 455 with 508 trailers, the PEP trailers seem no wider than the Mk3 
> vehicles of the rest of the unit.  Anyone have figures?


The Railway Centre shows 313/4/5 as 2.82m wide - the same as 319 / 321 etc

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:00:55 +0100, Great Eastern  wrote:

>R.C. Payne wrote:
>> I have heard it said that the PEP stuff is wider, but if you look at the 
>> 455 with 508 trailers, the PEP trailers seem no wider than the Mk3 
>> vehicles of the rest of the unit.  Anyone have figures?
>
>
>The Railway Centre shows 313/4/5 as 2.82m wide - the same as 319 / 321 etc
>
The profile of those classes can be misleading. They are IIRC designed
so that the upper part of the vehicle does not become foul to gauge
should there be a total failure of the air suspension on one side of
the vehicle. This results in the upper part of the vehicle being
narrower than usual but the illusion is of the lower part being "fat".