Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 19:59:54 GMT
I have a question:
Why do so many people hate 1992 stock?
I travel regularly on The Central and W&C. Although they're often packed, they're very quick and easy to get on and off. They also allow the huge numbers of people who use these services in peak to travel without waiting too long to be able to board...
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Jun 30, 2009 20:05:17 GMT
Uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built, synonymous with crashes involving falling motors, rubbish doors. Okay, I may have been a bit mean but, I'm a traditionalist.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 30, 2009 20:06:45 GMT
Shabby and cheap, and plastic, and have a bad public rep because of the derailments.
They represent a design ethos that LUL should have been embarrised about. Also, bear in mind what they replaced.
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Jun 30, 2009 20:28:50 GMT
I'm siding with Ben on this one, the 92TS are ^%$&.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 30, 2009 21:42:18 GMT
The layout of the passenger saloon in the 1992 stock was well designed.
Unfortunately the standard of the construction of the train, including the saloon, was very poor. The trains are uncomfortable, harsh, unreliable, poorly maintained and decrepit - just look at the amount of tape holding them together. The problems with motors falling off is symptomatic of the poor design of the technical parts of the train.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 30, 2009 22:14:40 GMT
These comments all seem to mainly represent the Central Line stock, the Drain stock is much nicer.
(and yes I know this thread is on the Central board)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 22:18:49 GMT
I like the 1992's ....
(shame the thread title is mis-spelt !)
...for a train with all longitudinal seating, the two forward, two set back, two forward seats makes form a much more comfortable ride. Shame they never found a way to refit vandle proof arm rests !
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 30, 2009 22:25:31 GMT
I like the 1992's .... (shame the thread title is mis-spelt !) Some people seem to think 1192 would be more appropriate! They seemed to habe not been nailed togther very well, but there are some good design features - the nice big windows, especially compared with 1995/96 stocks (does anyone else think the 95/96 stocks resemble daleks when seen from the side?) R1ncewind says the Drain stock is much nicer. maybe, or it could just be that no-one spends more than 4 minutes on a Drain train. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jun 30, 2009 22:33:03 GMT
Can't think why you think the ride is comfortable,the seats are way too low I always end up with stiff knees after a long journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 30, 2009 22:43:27 GMT
They seemed to habe not been nailed togther very well, but there are some good design features - the nice big windows, especially compared with 1995/96 stocks (does anyone else think the 95/96 stocks resemble daleks when seen from the side?) R1ncewind says the Drain stock is much nicer. maybe, or it could just be that no-one spends more than 4 minutes on a Drain train. Some say the big windows on 92TS causes the inside of the trains to get hot (like a greenhouse). The W&C units are better than the ones on the Central, as they were refurbished a few years ago, still have armrests, and look a lot better as they don't have tape on them. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 1, 2009 4:13:40 GMT
They are a testament to what happens if you want something good but dont want to pay the cost for it. Theres nothing wrong with the concept behind the design...wide doors, set back centre seating, large windows for visability, but its how its all implemented. Duct tape is not an acceptable engineering solution to anything, aside from stuff you fix in a shed!
I think the two worst things about them from a pax perspective are the DM"I" on the front (my eye sight is perfect, yet I can't read them more than 15 yards away), and the bits of vomit laden cloth one might consider perching on.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 1, 2009 7:25:22 GMT
I can't disagree with what's been said. A lot of people have a lot of bad things to say about the last coachbuilt tube stock (the 1983 stock), but it is sad to see the first of the new generation being so poorly built!
They need new motors and new seats!
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmaddog on Jul 1, 2009 8:57:25 GMT
As I've said many times before I'm a fan of them. The interior is extremely spacious compared to newer stock. The ride is much smoother than the 95/96ts. The acceleration and decelerations are impressive compared to the Northern line and its gentle jog. The less said about the Jubilee line nudgers trying to line up the doors the better!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 1, 2009 10:05:02 GMT
The interior is extremely spacious compared to newer stock. I agree there - the layout is better designed than the 1995/6 stock, but poorly constructed. The ride is much smoother than the 95/96ts. I've never travelled regularly enough on the Northern to comment on that line, but comparing the eastern end of the central and JLE there is not much in it in terms of ride quality. The acceleration and decelerations are impressive compared to the Northern line and its gentle jog. Mostly this is, I suspect, due to ATO on the Central Line and the northern line trains being artificially limited due to the signalling, etc. The less said about the Jubilee line nudgers trying to line up the doors the better! This is entirely due to the PEDs and not the trains, I would hope that ATO will fix this but I will wait and see. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2009 14:33:01 GMT
I don't like the 92ts as it always seems dark and dirty. The car lighting is poorly designed and the large windows let most of the light out! I don't care much for the stop-start-stop-start way the ATO drives the trains. Seats aren't very good. Generally a bit plasticy and not very aesthetically pleasing... apart from that they're ok  |
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jul 1, 2009 18:03:51 GMT
I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 1992s were very reliable? The Central line rarely has delays due to faulty trains.
But of course, I am definately not a fan of the interior, especially the shade of red used for the seating - makes the cars dull. (though W&C ones are actually not too bad).
I also find the announcement speakers a bit tinny and the lighting rather crude.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 1, 2009 19:23:08 GMT
R1ncewind says the Drain stock is much nicer. maybe, or it could just be that no-one spends more than 4 minutes on a Drain train. I've spent more than four minutes on The Drain; I went back the other way! ;D  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2009 23:50:25 GMT
The interior of the 1992 stock is dark, looks dirty and the seats are a bit low. The ride is pretty good though, and most of the delays I've encountered on the line have been to do with signals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 14:38:01 GMT
I read in a railway magazine that for their age and heavy useage they are very reliable trains, and popular with train operators due to their good braking and accelerating characteristics
I like the trains themselves but the interior looks a bit naffed up now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 14:45:23 GMT
In my opinion having used the central line every time i have visited London i have enjoyed the ride on the 1992 stock, althougth i do admit that they need a new interior
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 20:25:22 GMT
To begin with, it's important to understand a few things. and no criticism is levelled at anyone who has contributed so far, either good or bad. When the Central 2000 project started, this included complete overhaul of much track, a completely new signalling system and new trains. Ultimately, a *huge* chunk of the money was spent on the signalling. At the time, what you see now was the best available, at a cost of £2m a train. They were brilliant when they first came in, but sadly things have turned sour. If you think about the total cost of the Central 2000 project, £973m, taking out the £150m for the trains shows just how much was spent on the signalling equipment; very high tech for the time, but immediately superseded by better technology. As you know, the 1992 stock was the result of extensive tests done with the 1986 stock, those red, blue and green prototypes you might have seen trundling about at the time. The result seems to be a mishmash of all three. I do recall pictures of the prototypes at Woodford on static exhibit, and a few pictures of them at Neasden. For some strange reason, post Neasden, no more tests were done, as far as I know. Can't think why.  As explained previously, Metronet did suggest a Mid Life Refresh, but we all know what happened to that company... As a comparison, the 1995 stock cost £6m a train! |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 2, 2009 22:41:17 GMT
They are slower now then they were 5 years ago, as are A, C, and D Stock are (or will be). What does that say about LU?
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 2, 2009 22:53:55 GMT
No more tests after Neasden? Not a derailment surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Jul 3, 2009 11:44:48 GMT
So does anyone know how much one train costs to make on the Central line compared to the Northern/Jubilee lines?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 14:16:36 GMT
Another reason I can think of for them being unpopular is the fact that, back in the days when they had armrests, the local yobbery took a fancy to braking them off, so they were removed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 19:08:06 GMT
Don't forget that these trains were conceived in the cash-starved late 1980s/ early 1990s.
IMO, they are a stylish train that was ley down by poor construction and materials. They are in desperate need of a refurb, especially given the hammering they get every day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 20:36:06 GMT
So does anyone know how much one train costs to make on the Central line compared to the Northern/Jubilee lines? 2nd Paragraph, reply #20. ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 6:42:29 GMT
They are slower now then they were 5 years ago, as are A, C, and D Stock are (or will be). What does that say about LU? wasnt the 92 stock turned down so to speak with there speed? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 6:49:43 GMT
As I've said many times before I'm a fan of them. The interior is extremely spacious compared to newer stock. The ride is much smoother than the 95/96ts. The acceleration and decelerations are impressive compared to the Northern line and its gentle jog. The less said about the Jubilee line nudgers trying to line up the doors the better! The 95s are not operating to their full capacity wrt motors, and won't do until they go ATO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2009 22:44:02 GMT
After just returning to Ireland after a weekend in London, I used the 92 Stock a few times in Central London.
From a passenger perspective I think they are an excellent train. Fast off the mark, good braking, comfortable and spacious inside the vehicles which allows good passenger circulation.
I would agree the vehicles are starting to look tired and could do with an internal refresh but thats a minor point in my book.
Just out of interest, what is the linespeed through the central London part of the Central?
|
|
