1992 stock haters

I'd hate to see them scrapped, but I agree they need help! New motors, interior refurb and body repairs. Is this all possible however?

There was talk of them moving from DC to AC. I'm not an expert on the 92ts so I'm not 100% sure. The body work is very poor. I don't know what the answer to that. The interior is probably the easy bit.

Is that work going ahead? The Wikipedia entry for the 92ts suggests it is but does not cite a reference.

It has been suggested in various places such as Squarewheels that it would be cheaper to replace them. The tender document I saw estimated the budget for the work at between 90 and 130 million pounds.

Having followed this thread only scantily, I feel the contributors have made my (and others') point very well in that the idea of having one type of stock for all (tube) lines is a good crazy idea.

For those who insist on sticking to this dogma, just imagine what would be happening if there were 92s on the Jubbly, the Northern, and lined up for replacement on the Picc etc. .........

No - each time replacement is called for out goes a tender for a new design (similar or totally different from what's gone before). If it works - fine, we might have some more next time. If not (as with the 92s) accept it as a failure and resolve to do better in future.

The design isn't bad for the service they run, and theres nothing inherently wrong with it (aside from seats), its just poorly built and cheaply constructed.

But, back to Phils point though; Between the 'S' stock for the SSR, the bodyshell design for the JN(and possibly)P and the 67/72 body shell for the BCV, standardisation has, or is, happening...

Have to say I thought the same myself, but didn't want to say anything! Thing is on the Central, for a three minute gap somewhere, another part of the line (I would say another busy part) is getting a one minute frequency, just the way it works on high frequency lines.

Allow me to explain the presence of this comedy club...

The boards at Leyton display 1 minute when a train enters Leytonstone...so the total time for the train to arrive is 3 minutes. So when the board says 3 minutes...it's actually 5 minutes.

Now during the morning peak the trains enter Leyton station packed...you get to the next stop Stratford and everyone alights off the national express and jams onto the Central line...packed. Then you have to fight to get off the next station Mile End as the platform is...wait for it...packed primarily because the District line trains run through Mile End twice as frequently as the Central line trains.

I only have to put up with two stops of misery but it's like this every single day of the working week and I'm fed up of being squashed by women with their handbags (who refuse to take them off their shoulders and place them in their hands), men with their rucksacks (who refuse to do the same) and people who smell primarily because they like a curry for breakfast and thus the garlic comes out with their sweat.

I usually have to wait for 3 trains before I can get on one. Although erm...I gather a lot of trains aren't in service since they're falling apart.

True enough that the design of the 73ts was for heathrow, but with the 95/96 stocks the design has somewhat been perpetuated, not for luggage, but for standees and for wheeled things. Would a six car 96 tube stock not be able to accomodate luggage, for example?

The 95/6 body shell was implied as the basis for the replacement for the pic line stock on here somewhere aswell...

Fair play about traction packages; technology marches on and all that. Is it not likely though that eventually there will be a greater standardisation of bodies and such parts? Whereas developments in traction are constant, changes in how passengers use the space provided are far less radical over time; and with todays capacity requirements aren't likely to go backwards either. An interesting future perhaps.

Will 95/96ts bodyshell become the standard? Maybe for Alsthom but the 92ts can be treated as a standard for Bombardier. For example the 2009 stock has wide doors, similar end-of-carraige windows, body design and probably lots of other stuff I have yet to see.

It all goes down to who wins the contracts for the Bakerloo, Picc etc.

96ts is 7 carriages by the way, 95ts is 6 carriages.

External sliding doors could (in extreme) catch or injure someone waiting to board. Internally sliding doors can't.

Aluminium Alloy.

Well didn't the external doors shear off in one of the derailments? To take that one further, imagine what Moorgate would have been like with external doors.

Off the top of my head I would dispute it would have made any difference to crash damage, might have resulted in less metalwork to make its way inside the cars to damage people, and possibly even assist rescue work through being externally removable lumps of metal.

Thats a hard one to assess ... so I'll ask a question them. Can someone find some documented proff and/or stat to prove externally hung doors are more dangerous than those that are not.

--
Nick

Aren't externally-hung doors inherently unsafe in that they are more easily knocked off in an accident (see Chancery Lane) and actually cause the width of the passenger saloon to be narrower overall than would otherwise be the case if traditional door pockets had been used (as on class 378s). They also look clumsy and ugly although that's not my main point. I'd hoped their use on the 92TS, after being trialled on the 86TS, was going to be a short-lived aberration but alas not it seems.