|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 9, 2009 14:55:11 GMT
It was seeing the pictures of Standard stock on the NCL got me thinking about this......
It is normal practice for a line whose rolling stock has reached the end of its useful life to scrap that stock and get brand new trains, as is happening on the Met and Victoria lines at the moment. But sometimes another line gets the new stock instead, and the line with the scrapped stock gets the hand-me-downs. I can think of several examples:
- Central and Northern City Lines, on conversion to four-rail operation c1940, got standard stock displaced from the Northern by new 1938 stock.
- Northern City Line had Standard Stock replaced by 1938 stock (mid-sixties)
- East London Line had Q stock replaced by 1938 stock (c 1971).
- Piccadilly Line got new 1973 stock, displacing its 1959 stock to replace 1938 stock on the Northern.
- 1938 stock on Bakerloo replaced by 1972 MkII stock, which was displaced from Jubilee by 1983 stock.
Note in each case that a cascade requires two lines to be running a mixture of stock during the transitional period, instead of just one.
I appreciate that sometimes a cascade is needed because of changes in the characteristics of the lines used by trains which are too young to be scrapped - for example the IC125s were displaced from the ECML by electrification (and they had, in turn, displaced Mk 2s which were only a few years old). Another example is the class 317s displaced from the Bed-Pan route when dual voltage units were required for the Thameslink extension.
But what were the reasons for these cascades on the tube?
But that doesn't apply to any of these, does it?
Why did the Northern get the 1938 stock instead of the Central/NCL
Why did the Picadilly get the 1973 stock instead of the Northern? (Indeed, the Northern did get some new trains about then, the 1972 stock)
Why did the Jubilee get the 1983 stock instead of the Bakerloo?
And yes, the 1973 and 1983 stock might have been unable to operate on the Northern and Bakerloo tubes respectively, but as they were new, they could have been designed so that they could.
And where did the 1938 stock for the ELL and NCL come from in the 1960s/1970s?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 16:39:49 GMT
The 1973 stock was built for the Heathrow extension, hence the luggage spaces etc. internally. Imagine that the Government wanted brand new trains going to Heathrow to show off.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Dec 9, 2009 18:12:34 GMT
Imagine that the Government wanted brand new trains going to Heathrow to show off. I am trying to warck my brains about this as I was a commuter from Hounslow West when they were introduced, but I think that you must lay any comments at the foot of the Greater London Council. As from 1/1/70, the GLC took-over responsibilty for the buses and Underground through their 'ownership' of London Transport that had been transferred from the Government. The Heathrow extension to Terminal 4 was researched at length by me and written-about in Underground News. I then tackled the early mooting about a T5 extension. The T4 extension was very much led by the GLC, in an office in County Hall. The Ministry of Transport and other Government agencies were very much 'in the background' on occasions. I am sure that the same applied back in 1970-71 when the Heathrow extension was finally authorised and it was LT and the GLC team that dictated to Metro-Cammell about the design which of course had to incorporate luggage space. Apart from the Picc link there was a very hard proposal for a BR link from Feltham instead. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 9, 2009 19:13:05 GMT
It was seeing the pictures of Standard stock on the NCL got me thinking about this...... It is normal practice for a line whose rolling stock has reached the end of its useful life to scrap that stock and get brand new trains, as is happening on the Met and Victoria lines at the moment. But sometimes another line gets the new stock instead, and the line with the scrapped stock gets the hand-me-downs. I can think of several examples: - Central and Northern City Lines, on conversion to four-rail operation c1940, got standard stock displaced from the Northern by new 1938 stock. - Northern City Line had Standard Stock replaced by 1938 stock (mid-sixties) - East London Line had Q stock replaced by 1938 stock (c 1971). - Piccadilly Line got new 1973 stock, displacing its 1959 stock to replace 1938 stock on the Northern. - 1938 stock on Bakerloo replaced by 1972 MkII stock, which was displaced from Jubilee by 1983 stock. Note in each case that a cascade requires two lines to be running a mixture of stock during the transitional period, instead of just one. I appreciate that sometimes a cascade is needed because of changes in the characteristics of the lines used by trains which are too young to be scrapped - for example the IC125s were displaced from the ECML by electrification (and they had, in turn, displaced Mk 2s which were only a few years old). Another example is the class 317s displaced from the Bed-Pan route when dual voltage units were required for the Thameslink extension. But what were the reasons for these cascades on the tube? But that doesn't apply to any of these, does it? Why did the Northern get the 1938 stock instead of the Central/NCL Why did the Picadilly get the 1973 stock instead of the Northern? (Indeed, the Northern did get some new trains about then, the 1972 stock) Why did the Jubilee get the 1983 stock instead of the Bakerloo? And yes, the 1973 and 1983 stock might have been unable to operate on the Northern and Bakerloo tubes respectively, but as they were new, they could have been designed so that they could. And where did the 1938 stock for the ELL and NCL come from in the 1960s/1970s? I shall try and answer as many questions are poss.... Q stock on the East London was replaced by CO/CP stock in 4/5 and 6 car units. All formations gave trouble, too long or too quick! They were replaced in 1974 because of bogie faults and to increase the float of trains for the District. 1938ts to the Northern: Seems to have been on the cards for a while. Think it was due to major overcrowding on the Northern, and it was cheaper to increase capacity by usings cars with underfloor equipment and then lengthening the platforms on the Central and enlarging the tunnels at the same time. 8 car platforms on the Northern would cost too much 1973ts to the Piccadilly, as has been said, new trains for a new airport station. Added standbacks and shorter trains to fit in the platforms. The Northern got 30 trains of 1972 to keep Metro Cammel in business and to try and remove the 'misery line' tag on the Northern. The 38ts were failing badly. 1983ts to the Jubilee. 1972mkII stock also built to keep Metro-Cammel in business, and was justified by its use on the Jubilee(Fleet) Line when opened. Actually the 1972mkII stock was ordered for the Bakerloo! The aim was to build a fleet of trains (83ts) for the Jubilee and then add to them for stages II and III. The main reason for these stocks was to get rid of the 1938ts of which there was lots! The NCL 1938 stock was from the Northern Line. The ELL trains came from ex Northern Stock withdrawn after the 1972MkI trains arrived. Some went to the Bakerloo, to replace the 58 trailers, and others went to the ELL. Laterly, some EHO trains were used on the ELL. LU was trying to standardise rolling stock for all lines so there was no need to design 1973-83 stock for other lines. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Dec 9, 2009 19:14:16 GMT
The positive shoegear design of 38TS meant it couldn't operate on the trunk section of the Central due to the higher positive rail.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Dec 9, 2009 22:20:20 GMT
Is it only the 38ts that was affected? Because I've read countless times about the high-lift shoe gear requirement on the central's trunk section, but ISTR someone on here saying it wasn't as simple as that...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Dec 9, 2009 23:19:19 GMT
1938ts to the Northern: Seems to have been on the cards for a while. Think it was due to major overcrowding on the Northern, and it was cheaper to increase capacity by usings cars with underfloor equipment and then lengthening the platforms on the Central and enlarging the tunnels at the same time. 8 car platforms on the Northern would cost too much Additionally I was of the impression that the extensions being planned would have required a massive number of new trains, so if you're building new trains it makes sense to displace the current stock so you have uniform trains on a line. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 9, 2009 23:29:18 GMT
This is it. The Northern Extensions to Ally Pali, Bushey Heath and High Barnet, along with the Bakerloo Extension to Camberwell needed more trains than the Standard stock available. I believe the Central Line service was going to be (and still probably is) less frequent than the Northern Line service. Also the only why to increase capacity on Northern was to build new trains and gain the advantage of not having 3 lots of equipment rooms.
Compare it to the situation today. The only way to increase capacity on the Met is to build new trains the same length. The Circle Line will gain longer trains instead!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 23:34:01 GMT
It is normal practice for a line whose rolling stock has reached the end of its useful life to scrap that stock and get brand new trains, as is happening on the Met and Victoria lines at the moment. While that may be current LU practice, I think historically that has not been generally been the case - LT appearing to have a much more holistic approach to its rolling stock fleet replacement. The current policy of completely separate line fleets is ok, as long as the fleet size has been correctly specified, covering the life of the fleet. Is the '09 fleet going to meet the Victoria line's need in the 2030s? What is going to happen if it isn't? (the '67 one proved too small in the 1990s - then some '72 stock could be drafted in as reinforcement). Is there enough slack in the Northern line fleet to provide for the Battersea (or suggested Clapham Jn) extension? Or will the reason for it not happening be the difficulty of providing a few more trains? The New Works programme of the late 1930s, with a lot of extensions, meant the Bakerloo, Northern and Central all needed more trains. Sending the new 1938 stock to the Bakerloo and Northern (whose extensions were coming first) both gave the opportunity to refurbish the pre-1938 stock, before using it on the Central, and to provide the extra capacity (from the lack of switch compartments) where it was most needed (on the Northern). AIUI use of 8 car trains on the Central was foreseen/provided for in the NWP - can anybody be more precise on this? And I think there was a fair bit of numbers juggling - there was so much stock of the various types, so much required for the different lines, how could these best be matched? I think the bottom line is that there were specific reasons for the Piccadilly and Jubilee to have had new trains, together with a desire to move towards trains of fewer but longer cars (at the expense of flexibility) Surpluses elsewhere, from declining traffic, or arrival of new stock. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Dec 9, 2009 23:34:42 GMT
I think they over ordered 38TS as at the time the Northern Heights extension was still on the cards and they would've needed more stock than they had in Standard Stock.The original plan was for 38TS to be exclusively on the Northern & the Bakerloo & Piccadilly to get new stock at a later date.As WW2 put paid to that plan,the surplus stock was cascaded to the Bakerloo & Piccadilly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2009 0:14:11 GMT
Imagine that the Government wanted brand new trains going to Heathrow to show off. I am trying to warck my brains about this as I was a commuter from Hounslow West when they were introduced, but I think that you must lay any comments at the foot of the Greater London Council. As from 1/1/70, the GLC took-over responsibilty for the buses and Underground through their 'ownership' of London Transport that had been transferred from the Government. The Heathrow extension to Terminal 4 was researched at length by me and written-about in Underground News. I then tackled the early mooting about a T5 extension. The T4 extension was very much led by the GLC, in an office in County Hall. The Ministry of Transport and other Government agencies were very much 'in the background' on occasions. I am sure that the same applied back in 1970-71 when the Heathrow extension was finally authorised and it was LT and the GLC team that dictated to Metro-Cammell about the design which of course had to incorporate luggage space. Apart from the Picc link there was a very hard proposal for a BR link from Feltham instead. Fair enough, I used 'Government' in an all-level way and then realised I should have put GLC. I'm surprised to hear that central Government didn't have much of a hand in the project. Will some of the 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly get cascaded on to the Bakerloo Line if/when the line returns to Watford Junction? Hope I remembered properly which line was getting new stock first! |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 11, 2009 2:47:22 GMT
'Fraid not. The current plans won't have the Bakerloo go back up to Watford till its own upgrade in the 2020s, so that increased stock requirements can be included. The 72mk 1s weren't saved for use elsewhere when they were withdrawn from the Northern. Considering the amount of time the mk2s will spend in service after their refurb, its a shame there was no justification to bring the mk1s after a refurb to the Bakerloo to opperate an extended Watford service. Circumstances were different at the time however.
I'm suprised the replacement tender for the Pics stock is ~90. Time was it needed roughly 100 to maintain its service; and that was before Heathrow.
As an aside, the Central needs more trains, the Pic could do with a few, the Northern probably will if a split and Battersea occur, the Bakerloo will if Watford happens (but this is concurrent with the line upgrade) but what about if the southern extension happens in 25 years? And then the Jubilee... It seems a lot of lines could do with in the region of 5-10 more trains, but it would be difficult to justify a building program for such a small number of trains per line to different designs.
If things start going well for the tube, and money remains going in, then its a possibility that cascades will happen again at some time in the future. Or at least that would be a logical thing to happen. Whether LBUs put this off, or the PPP structure stops it then who knows.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 28, 2009 23:21:51 GMT
If there are 5 lines needing about 10 extra trains each, what would be the economics of building a single fleet of 50 trains that could run on all tube lines?
OK, they might not be ideally suited to the individual needs of each line, but as long as they didn't bunch and weren't very unsuited then a better suited train would be along in a few minutes, so that would not be a major issue. Equally they could be typically restricted to certain routes in a similar way to the way the District C stock fleet is worked.
Heavy maintenance could be concentrated at a single depot, with the trains shuffled about between the lines to accommodate this - if all 50 trains are identical it shouldn't matter whether line X uses trains 1-10 or 13-19, 28 and 41-44.
Issues would be about designing a universal coupler - but perhaps instead a series of adaptor plates could be carried, light maintenance and driver training. These could be minimised by only allocating them to certain depots in the same way that on the District east end drivers and maintainers don't deal with C stock.
Lots of potential problems, but nothing insurmountable I wouldn't have thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2009 0:45:31 GMT
Trains that are capable of operating on all lines? That's f-a-r too much like common sense for a modern railway system. on the main line hardly anything couples to each other these days. If a passenger train fails in front of my freight I can't even push it out of the way now!
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Dec 29, 2009 1:08:36 GMT
Why did the Northern get the 1938 stock instead of the Central/NCL? The Northern line was over crowded, and it would have been too expensive to lengthen platforms on the line, as most of the Northern is underground. So, 1938 stock was used, as they had more capacity than the 'standard' stock, due to the equipment being under the floor. Also, the Northern needed extra trains because of the extensions, so it made sense to replace the 'standard' stock, so the line would have only one type of train. If the extensions from Finsbury Park had been built, the Northern City would have become part of the northern, and used 38TS. Why did the Picadilly get the 1973 stock instead of the Northern? (Indeed, the Northern did get some new trains about then, the 1972 stock) The Piccadilly was being extended to Heathrow, so new trains with extra luggage space were built for the line. Also, the Picc was mostly 56/59TS, but there were a few trains of 38TS running on the line. The Northern had 72TS and 38TS. If the 38TS on the Northern had been replaced by 73TS, and either 72TS from the Northern or new 73TS replaced the 38TS on the Picc, both lines would have still been running two different types. Why did the Jubilee get the 1983 stock instead of the Bakerloo? The 1972 MkII stock that the Jubilee were running was not built for the line. They were built for two reasons - to replace 38TS, and Metro Cammell had no railway orders at the time. The 1983 stock was designed for the Jubilee, but LT didn't have much money at the time, so the first batch was not ordered until 1981. And yes, the 1973 and 1983 stock might have been unable to operate on the Northern and Bakerloo tubes respectively, but as they were new, they could have been designed so that they could. Are you sure the 73TS can't run on the Northern? They are the same size as the 95TS. Unless there is some other reason that they can't run on that line. And where did the 1938 stock for the ELL and NCL come from in the 1960s/1970s? I'm not sure were the Northern City line's 38TS came from, but there probably were some spare units around. By the time 38TS started running on the ELL, they were being replaced by 1972TS on the Northern. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 29, 2009 2:12:16 GMT
The 73's used to be out of gauge for the Northern line. I don't think theyve been gauged since the 95s came on, and theres the question of auxillery equipment interfering with the signalling.
Just to further the point about the amount of platforms to lengthen, at the time the tunnel sections of the central comprised in the order of 26 platforms, whilst the northern had about 78 platforms underground. If the capacity of 7 car 38ts trains was very similar to that of an 8 car standard stock, then lengthening the Centrals platforms has a clear financial advantage for the same capacity per train.
The GN&CR would have taken 8 cars though, and presumably the LNERs lines had similarly long platforms? Bushey though could well have been planned to 9 cars at one point. These are moot points, however!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 29, 2009 7:57:16 GMT
Trains that are capable of operating on all lines? That's f-a-r too much like common sense for a modern railway system. on the main line hardly anything couples to each other these days. If a passenger train fails in front of my freight I can't even push it out of the way now! The latter point is something I find strange - this is before we get into the management saying "ooh, well it's not our job to push other trains about" and staff saying "ooh, coupling up to a broken down train isn't in my job description". I always understood that in order for a new type of train to be used on the BR network, it had to conform to particular specifications - for example, loading gauge, buffer height, couplers etc. It wouldn't surprised me if these had been relaxed / thrown out the window in the name of privatisation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2009 12:12:26 GMT
It began prior to privatisation. On New Years Eve 1994 I was sent to Woking with a locomotive to 'assist suburban services as required' as heavy snow had been forecast (it never came). London suburban services were then (as now) formed of 455s. A unit that my class 37 was physically incapable of coupling to! I tried to tell them but......... I also understand that Cross Country Voyagers cannot even couple to the Stagecoach Voyagers on the Midland Main line! I can't think of one modern passenger train that my 66 could push without causing serious damage. It makes one wonder how many adaptor couplings that Battery Locos will have to carry in the future if LT go the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Dec 29, 2009 16:18:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Dec 29, 2009 16:46:18 GMT
The 73's used to be out of gauge for the Northern line. I don't think theyve been gauged since the 95s came on, and theres the question of auxillery equipment interfering with the signalling. Just as an aside...to what extent are they out of gauge, and what would be required to (I'm assuming) alter the Northern to accommodate the (I'm assuming) larger sizes? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 29, 2009 18:57:04 GMT
The 73ts and 95ts are the same width and the 73ts are shorter than the 95ts so there shouldn't be a gauge problem. However, whether the 73s would fit down the Bakerloo is another matter?
On a related note, I recently read the 1920 Cammell Laird Stock was going to work the GN&City post war, but was found to be out of gauge!!! Standard stock fitted fine though ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 29, 2009 20:29:09 GMT
If the 38TS on the Northern had been replaced by 73TS, and either 72TS from the Northern or new 73TS replaced the 38TS on the Picc, both lines would have still been running two different types. But if the new trains had been built for the Northern, they wouldn't have been built as 1973 stock but as a larger 1972 stock order, so the Northern would then have had only one type of stock - instead of the four it ended up with (1938, 1956/59, 1972Mk1, 1972 Mk II) |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Dec 29, 2009 20:47:14 GMT
If the 38TS on the Northern had been replaced by 73TS, and either 72TS from the Northern or new 73TS replaced the 38TS on the Picc, both lines would have still been running two different types. But if the new trains had been built for the Northern, they wouldn't have been built as 1973 stock but as a larger 1972 stock order, so the Northern would then have had only one type of stock - instead of the four it ended up with (1938, 1956/59, 1972Mk1, 1972 Mk II) But if that had happened, the Northern would still have had two types - 72TS MkI and 72TS MkII, as they were not compatible originally. Or, if you are counting the 72TS as one fleet, then it only ended up with three types - 38TS, 56/59TS, and 72TS. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 29, 2009 21:09:12 GMT
I've always been confused by the provenance of the 1972Mk2 stock. If, as stated upthread, it was bult for the Bakerloo to replace its 1938 stock, why was it first delivered to the Northern?
And contrariwise, if it was actually built with the intention of first running on the Northern, why was it not built to be compatible with the Mk Is?
What made the two types incompatible anyway?
As it is, I think the Bakerloo has now had four lots of second-hand rolling stock - 1972MkII stock (from the Northern), 1938EHO stock (also from the Northern), 1959 stock (third hand, from the Piccadilly via the Northern) and finally 1972 Mk II stock again, but this time from the Jubilee!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 29, 2009 21:25:07 GMT
The 1972mkII stock was actually built for the Bakerloo. It differed I would guess from the MKI stock because of its pre-wiring for OPO (and ATO). The MKI stock was only designed for crew operation - a strange decision really!
The 72mkII stock was built to 1) keep Met-Camm going, 2) temp. operate the New Jubilee line, 3) allow the Northern to be rid of most of the 1938 stock 4) allow fewer units of 38ts to be EHO and then when the 83ts could be afforded - replace the EHO 38ts on the Bakerloo and bring OPO to that line!
The Northern would be stuck with two rolling stock types till the end of the century when new stock could be built.
The 59s on the Bakerloo were only a stop gap till until the Jubilee line received all its 83ts (making it OPO) and then the 72mkIIs could all go to the Bakerloo which could then also go OPO! Complex huh!
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Dec 29, 2009 22:27:08 GMT
AFAIK the 72MkI & Mk2 as built could run together but in reality never did.Also,before PEA mods in the 80s,the 4 car unit of 72TS Mk1 & 2 was fully reversible(32** or 33** car could couple to UNDM)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 29, 2009 23:48:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Dec 30, 2009 10:46:24 GMT
AFAIK the 72MkI & Mk2 as built could run together but in reality never did.Also,before PEA mods in the 80s,the 4 car unit of 72TS Mk1 & 2 was fully reversible(32** or 33** car could couple to UNDM) They did occasionally. I have seen a photo of same taken, I think, by our own reganorak. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 30, 2009 22:43:02 GMT
The impression I get (others will know better, I'm sure) is that the 72ts MkI was designed in a hurry - and, hence, was a very basic conversion of the 67ts. Presumably the designers at the time were only worried about what would fit in with the requirement at the time, rather than the likely requirement a few years down the line.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 31, 2009 8:26:50 GMT
You're correct I believe. The Northern had a poor reputation in the 70s and new trains were supposed to help. The aim was to introduce a fleet of trains similar to those operating on the new Victoria Line that were modern looking and unpainted. To save time (and Met Cammell!) the 1967ts design was chosen but reworked for 7 car operation and crew control. There were several differences, as highlighted, the UNDM car was produced with its 4 car partner unit being reversable.
They lacked calling on lights as they were not intended for OPO. I think LU were utimately fortunate the stock was ordered because it filled a hole in the Northern Line fleet that the 1956/59 stock from the Piccadilly could never fully do. In time the 1972MKI fleet has been used to augment both Bakerloo and Victoria line fleets although I'm sure many drivers did/do not enjoy their driving experience!
|
|
