|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 2, 2008 18:38:49 GMT
I read with interest Piers Connor's article in this month's Underground News about ATO on the Central line. Towards the end, he talked about what was mantioned on here a few weeks ago, namely the replacing of DC motors with AC.
He mentioned that in the end, it may be more cosr effective to replace the trains completely!
I think this would be a shame, but also a good idea really. I'm a fan of the 92 stock, but they could have been so much better. What a lesson for what happens when you build things cheaply, and cut corners. The trains have been nothing but trouble since the day they were introduced, and now look increasingly shabby. Mention was made of stress on the bogies showing much earlier than would be expected of a stock which is only between 13 - 15 years old.
They were the first really modern trains on LUL (not counting the 1986 prototypes), and promised so much. If they do get replaced, it will certainly be odd, as I watched them come into service.
Of course, the Central line upgrade project still isn't delivering what was promised, and the peak service is still not as good as it was in the 1970's. It's even worse now, what with the 5 or so trains that get cancelled in each peak due to the motor problems.
Anyone else think they should, or indeed will, go in the near future i.e.. within 5 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 2, 2008 18:44:26 GMT
I don't think they should be replaced, just rebuilt. I don't think they will go in the near future because LU are about to replace the A, C, D, 1967 and 1973 stock trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 2, 2008 18:50:30 GMT
I don't think they should be replaced, just rebuilt. I don't think they will go in the near future because LU are about to replace the A, C, D, 1967 and 1973 stock trains. In the article, it wsa mentioned that the cost of replacing may not be significantly higher than a refurb and remotoring exercise. Remember that there would be increased maintenance costs as the fleet got older, and who knows what else could go wrong? Remember, there are problems with leaks, the windows don't fit properly, the large amount of glass makes them like greenhouses, the destination displays are knackered (for the second time), the seats have had it . . . |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 2, 2008 18:55:46 GMT
Do the W&C 92TS have the same problems? I like the amount of glass in the 1992 stock, the only reason the 95/96TS don't is that the 96TS was going to run with the 1983 stock so they were made to look like the 83TS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2008 18:58:17 GMT
The 1995/6 stock were built to a higher price than the 1992ts and it shows.
weren't the D stock bogies/suspension replaced when they were of similar age?
What was mentioned in the article was that the actual car bodies are in a poor condition (just see the amount of tape needed to keep the trains waterproof!)
LU needs to decide whether it would be less expensive in the long run to purchase a new build of trains or to have an extensive refurbishment of the current stock which has a multitude of serious problems. The earliest they could be replaced would be after Bombardier finish with current orders (2012?) or another manufacturer could be used. In any case, by the time any stock could be introduced the trains would be at least 20 years old. Two thirds of the way through the stock's life, but having spent about two thirds of money compared to the 1995/6 stock, it would be expected!
The other problematic aspect is that if new trains are purchased, would it be prudent to install new Westinghouse signalling or keep the existing fixed block signalling which could actually improve the throughput of trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 2, 2008 19:35:43 GMT
If the signalling was replaced as well, it would never have reached its planned capacity of 33 - 35tph. Of course, the whole resignalling of the line last time was a pain in the backside, and caused massive problems, which were made even worse because it was being done when the 92 stock was coming in!
Also, wasn't the track supposed to have been updated for high speed running, as well as the points and crossovers. Some are, but most are no quicker, if not slower, than they were in the old days!
Maybe they should just admit defeat on the whole thing. Still, valuable lessons were leart, which will mean upgrades on the other lines will go much smoother.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jun 2, 2008 19:40:49 GMT
Maybe an add on order of the 09stock could be made? For the record I like the 92ts, I hope a solution can be reached with their demise!
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 2, 2008 19:47:13 GMT
Maybe an add on order of the 09stock could be made? For the record I like the 92ts, I hope a solution can be reached with their demise! Can't do that - the 09 stock are too big for the Central's tunnels. Also, the driving position is on the wrong side, and therefore would be out of allignment for the few colour light signals on the line. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jun 2, 2008 20:49:09 GMT
Oh gosh-good point! The windows are too small anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 2, 2008 21:31:59 GMT
Maybe an add on order of the 09stock could be made? For the record I like the 92ts, I hope a solution can be reached with their demise! Can't do that - the 09 stock are too big for the Central's tunnels. Also, the driving position is on the wrong side, and therefore would be out of allignment for the few colour light signals on the line. in the scheme of things, these would be trivial to fix |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 5, 2008 15:01:44 GMT
Even the tunnel size/alignment thing? Maybe with that they reposition the +ve rail the standard height with that.
What about another order for 95 ts? Run as 8 car trains they would be 12.16m longer than an 8car 1992, which could be accomodated at overground stations, but perhaps only by SDO at underground stations.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 5, 2008 15:11:17 GMT
I think though the more important question is whether LU would want to loose face by admitting what they ordered was rubbish. There was a lot invested in the trains in terms of hype when they entered service. I really think its all about image at the end of the day. LU didnt loose much face by scrapping the 83ts as despite the age they were understood to be products of a different set of circumstances that didnt match what was expected for the future image (the JLE); but the 1992 ts...nothing changed in terms of vision for the central line; its just the trains never met expectations! One wonders if the new trains will include Ongar as a destination   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2008 15:30:34 GMT
it would be a shame I like 1992 stock i think build of them would be good
I would say no to a re order beacause
it takes more power and recources just to make new trains so really a re build and
motors should be ac like piers said once, they are easy to repair and have a longer life span, and they make less noise
95's do have the power and if they were looked after more they would run much better so more 95's would be good to
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 5, 2008 15:42:23 GMT
One wonders if the new trains will include Ongar as a destination I was on a 92TS a year or two ago, that still had Ongar on a map inside it! Why not build 7 car 95TS for the Central and some 6 car trains for the Piccadilly? Then the 95TS would be a standard type of tube stock. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 5, 2008 22:48:19 GMT
One wonders if the new trains will include Ongar as a destination I was on a 92TS a year or two ago, that still had Ongar on a map inside it! Why not build 7 car 95TS for the Central and some 6 car trains for the Piccadilly? Then the 95TS would be a standard type of tube stock. They would never build extra 95TS trains - they are now old technology, although still a modern looking and working train. |
|
|
|
Post by maxtube on Jun 6, 2008 14:45:14 GMT
I was on a 92TS a year or two ago, that still had Ongar on a map inside it! If any trains still have the Janet Mayo DVA, you can make it say 'This train terminates at Ongar'! At Holborn, on a Central Line map, it still lists the Ongar branch including Blake Hall! At one Piccadilly Line station, it still listed Aldwych on a map! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2008 15:49:42 GMT
They would never build extra 95TS trains - they are now old technology, although still a modern looking and working train.[/quote]
I wouldnt really call 13 years OLD they have some of the neest equipment to
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 6, 2008 16:53:42 GMT
They would never build extra 95TS trains - they are now old technology, although still a modern looking and working train. I wouldnt really call 13 years OLD they have some of the neest equipment to[/quote] Believe me, in technology terms, 13 years old is ANCIENT. Actually, they have only been in service for 10 years, but that's still old! |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jun 6, 2008 16:58:34 GMT
A 92ts never ran to Ongar ever did they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Jun 6, 2008 17:05:23 GMT
A 92ts never ran to Ongar ever did they? It did but was top and tailed by battery locos, on 13th July 1993. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 6, 2008 17:27:05 GMT
Believe me, in technology terms, 13 years old is ANCIENT. Actually, they have only been in service for 10 years, but that's still old! I think that LU should stop wanting everything to be as modern as possible, and have a more standard fleet instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 6, 2008 19:11:15 GMT
I was on a 92TS a year or two ago, that still had Ongar on a map inside it! At one Piccadilly Line station, it still listed Aldwych on a map! Rare as hens teeth now since Heathrow Terminal 5. Before the Terminal 5 map switch over, there were many for example at Southgate (before refurbishment). Also at Holborn station, the platform numbers for 5 and 6 have blaintantly been covered up by a plastic strip. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2008 20:12:39 GMT
There probably a few examples of the 'Ongar' car maps scattered about the depot stores... Ahem... Bond Street had a sign, which until the recent refurb washed it away, still had BLAKE HALL on it!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 6, 2008 20:26:29 GMT
There probably a few examples of the 'Ongar' car maps scattered about the depot stores... Ahem... Bond Street had a sign, which until the recent refurb washed it away, still had BLAKE HALL on it!!! Wow that had to be old!! ;D |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,407
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 6, 2008 21:24:43 GMT
There are many examples of Central Line station signs with the stations beyond Epping plated over.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 7, 2008 13:23:48 GMT
Bond Street had a sign, which until the recent refurb washed it away, still had BLAKE HALL on it!!! When did Blake Hall close? |
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 7, 2008 13:24:58 GMT
31st of October 1981
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 8, 2008 0:57:03 GMT
Last time I checked, Hilllingdon still had Aldwych on the picc line diagram...
It would be seen as bad to go from an 8 car formation to a 7 car one; would reintroduce flexability problems aswell. However, nothings stopping the body shell being the same, but the traction package different...
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jun 8, 2008 12:12:43 GMT
There are many examples of Central Line station signs with the stations beyond Epping plated over. And quite a few showing Shepherds Bush Green.....which never happened... |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 8, 2008 16:13:11 GMT
However, nothings stopping the body shell being the same, but the traction package different... But then you can't move trains from one line to another when you want to change services, like you could with Standard, 38, 59/62 and 72 stock. Could you have a new traction package that is compatible with older ones? |
|
