Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,219 
|
Post by Ben on Nov 21, 2017 22:00:54 GMT
Here's a question that might help answer the initial idea: In the same way the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's, were 72's were built for longer use and the 73's built to quickly and cheaply replace the old fleet? If they were then TfL can't have seen this dire need of an upgrade as a surprise. The 73ts were a new design compared to the 72ts. In fact, it is the 72ts (especially the late mk1 variety) that were the quick bodge to an existing design (67ts) to enable fleet replacement (38ts) (but also keep Met Cam's accounts ticking over). The 73ts is arguably the ultimate development of the conventional Underground train. Technologically it is about 6 years newer than the 67/72ts, reverting to a single camshaft design for traction and brake control, compared to the double design for the 67/72ts. Even its cost reducing elements (such as total reduction in train length for future OMO, longer cars reducing equipment amounts, twin door rodding) seem to have been more durable than the subsequent fleet's similar attempts to do the job with less expenditure. EDIT: where have you got the idea that 'the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's'  |
|
|
|
Post by ethano92345 on Nov 21, 2017 23:26:47 GMT
Here's a question that might help answer the initial idea: In the same way the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's, were 72's were built for longer use and the 73's built to quickly and cheaply replace the old fleet? If they were then TfL can't have seen this dire need of an upgrade as a surprise. The 73ts were a new design compared to the 72ts. In fact, it is the 72ts (especially the late mk1 variety) that were the quick bodge to an existing design (67ts) to enable fleet replacement (38ts) (but also keep Met Cam's accounts ticking over). The 73ts is arguably the ultimate development of the conventional Underground train. Technologically it is about 6 years newer than the 67/72ts, reverting to a single camshaft design for traction and brake control, compared to the double design for the 67/72ts. Even its cost reducing elements (such as total reduction in train length for future OMO, longer cars reducing equipment amounts, twin door rodding) seem to have been more durable than the subsequent fleet's similar attempts to do the job with less expenditure. EDIT: where have you got the idea that 'the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's' I can't remember, I read it somewhere that the 95's were built to last a long amount of time, upwards of 45 years but the 96's were built quote: "on the cheap to last no longer than 30 years". I know its quite unreliable as I can't remember where I read it but it was one of those transport blog pages or something. It might be incorrect as its a single source but I just remember it, I'll have a look to see if I can find the original article. Thanks for the answer to my question though, I guess that means my theory is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 22, 2017 0:55:45 GMT
I believe the 73ts is quite reliable according to a recent report. More reliable than the 72’s and 92’s. The "Tube performance almanac" (who invents these names?) on the TfL website [1] has a full set of various performance metrics going back over a decade. It includes the MDBF for rolling stock. Looking at the average for the P1-7 for this year the Picc is around 31,880 kms between failures. That's marginally better than the Northern and a fair chunk better than Jubilee. The newest stocks - S and 09 - are doing better than the Picc but one would hope that the worst foibles of those new stocks have been "shaken down" and we should be seeing decent reliability growth now. The 73 stock is almost 4 times more reliable, on average this year, than both the 72 stock and 92 stock which are both under 9,000kms MDBF which, to be frank, is really awful. [1] tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/underground-services-performance in case anyone else wants to access the data. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 22, 2017 1:10:52 GMT
The Picc is the first line that many tourists encounter when they arrive in London, so the impression it gives about the system is not a good one. I would expect that Crossrail may soon take over many of the airport passengers that haven't already been lured away by the publicity at the airport for HEx. This may give the Picc some wriggle room, both in terms of capacity and exposure, to struggle on for a few more years. Funny - I rarely use it now, so I still think of the Piccadilly as it was when I first came to London and it was my local line - then, the 1973 stock was super-whizzy and bang up-to-date, and a marked contrast to the ancient CO/CP stock trundling along on the adjacent tracks. I think you are correct that TfL will go into overdrive to try to push Heathrow passengers on to Crossrail - assuming HAL will allow any publicity at the airport!!! However the take up will very largely depend on the fares that apply. I can't see too many people forking out £10.30 single from Paddington to Heathrow on "TfL Rail / Crossrail / Lizzie Line" (I've quoted the current Hrow Connect fare) given Crossrail, for all its wonders, doesn't touch many of the main hotel districts and has fairly poor connections to some tube lines (no connection to the Picc or Victoria). It would certainly be pretty useless to me given I'd have a far longer walk to a station and far more involved interchanges if I was dragging luggage. Barring lifting my bag on to the local bus and coping with escalators my journey to Heathrow involves no stairs whatsover and 1 tube interchange on to the Picc. The frequency is also vastly higher than on any of the alternative routes. Obviously I am just a sole example out of millions and I dare say plenty of people will use Crossrail to Heathrow and more so if fares are the same as the tube or only very slightly higher. That's the crucial factor for Londoners rather than tourists who may be more prepared to be "ripped off" for journeys to / from airports. If the fares are reasonable on Crossrail then the Picc may well get a breather of sorts in terms of Heathrow. However I really do feel that TfL have probably pushed things further than they really should in delaying the active start of upgrade works on the line. There are simply far too many things that can go wrong on that line given the age of the assets and the relentless pressure the route works under. |
|
|
|
Post by DistrictSOM on Nov 22, 2017 4:22:31 GMT
I believe the 73ts is quite reliable according to a recent report. More reliable than the 72’s and 92’s. Wouldnt have thought it's difficult to beat the 92ts in that respect! Theyre probably not doing much better than class 483... The Picc does seem to have drawn the short straw for the foreseeable future. Further, any unconventional solution seems difficult/expensive enough to render it almost a non starter. Beyond thinning services past Arnos Grove, and Acton - Rayners becoming a shuttle, there seems nothing more that could possibly give. Not to mention the size of its fleet being too limited. One wonders how much it would cost to immunise Rayners - Acton and improve vertical clearances. Millions |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 22, 2017 7:17:40 GMT
Another signal failure this morning. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Nov 22, 2017 10:18:46 GMT
Surely the bakerloo line is a more of a misery line if the rolling stock is older and more unreliable?
|
|
cso
chatter
Posts: 1,001
|
Post by cso on Nov 22, 2017 10:37:08 GMT
Old stock verses not being able to go somewhere due to signal failures - I know which I’d rather have...
|
|
|
|
Post by nig on Nov 22, 2017 10:38:55 GMT
Surely the bakerloo line is a more of a misery line if the rolling stock is older and more unreliable? The trains aren't the problem on the pic its the amount of track and signal failures |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 22, 2017 12:33:09 GMT
Old stock verses not being able to go somewhere due to signal failures - I know which I’d rather have... Exactly my thoughts too. Regardless of the age of the rolling stock, if it is repeatedly let down by track or signalling faults, then the trains are not really the cause of the "misery" and people should actually be pressing LUL/the Mayor to find the funds needed to fix or better still replace whatever assets are now letting the side down - regardless of whether or not the bean counters consider them to be fully life expired. Sadly major expenditure in mostly hidden infrastructure like signalling, power supplies and track/formation does not make great tabloid style headlines unlike orders for extra rolling stock. |
|
|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Nov 22, 2017 12:57:16 GMT
The ancient trains on the Piccadilly prevent the additional capacity the line so desperately needs from being provided. They need replacing ASAP.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by Ben on Nov 22, 2017 13:05:54 GMT
The ancient trains on the Piccadilly prevent the additional capacity the line so desperately needs from being provided. They need replacing ASAP. Unfortunately malcolmffc, you've managed to give a near perfect illustration of sort of thing alpinejohn was talking about in his comment just previously: Sadly major expenditure in mostly hidden infrastructure like signalling, power supplies and track/formation does not make great tabloid style headlines unlike orders for extra rolling stock. From everything established on the thread, the only probable deficiency the Pic has with its stock is that there isn't more of them. The overwhelming majority of its troubles come from infrastructure troubles. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 22, 2017 13:06:58 GMT
Surely the bakerloo line is a more of a misery line if the rolling stock is older and more unreliable? Is it actually older? I thought the 1972 Mark 2s were actually slightly younger than the 1973 stock, both actually entering service in 1974. If anyone has the actual dates....... (If I recall, the original plan had been to re-equip the Northern Line to replace its 1938 stock, but the Heathrow extension meant the Piccadilly took priority and got the bespoke 1973 stock, with its 1959 stock cascaded to the Northern - the 1972 Mk2 stock being needed to make up the shortfall as the Northern needs more trains than were coming over from the Picc, and the 1973 design wasn't suitable for the Northern) |
|
|
|
Post by DistrictSOM on Nov 22, 2017 13:54:22 GMT
Another signal failure this morning. . . Broken track connection |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Nov 22, 2017 14:01:53 GMT
Slightly off topic but if the usual short-sightedness and penny-pinching attitude (as usual)had not prevailed the District line could havew served Heathrow for the sake of slightly larger tunnels. The distance from Hounslow west is not great antd this would have had benefits of larger stock with more luggage space etc: There was no reason that in this case the Picc: line could not have run there as well.
|
|
