S Stock In Service date.

At the risk of splitting hairs, rather than being part of the Electrostar family (a la the Class 378 Capitalstars), the 'S' stock and the 2009 stock are both specially adapted from the Movia range.

THC

What does STN mean? I'm guessing it's some sort of timetable notice - special perhaps?

I think they are just LED clusters are they not?

Although in this day and age if a car can have headlights that go around the corner with you, you would have thought such technology could be developed for a train.

I too like what i have seen of it.

In some way or other I think we're all trying to say the same thing (with regard to the S stock's natural blood line).

Moving on to the reason for why it takes so long to introduce a new type of rolling stock in the UK - we agree S stock the-finished-article is unlike any other yeah? - I suspect the need for safety cases as required by the Office of Rail Regulation is the likely offender.

In any case though, is it really such a bad thing to test something and ensure it actually does what it's supposed to do before you put into public service? No doubt we'd be a called a complete bunch of cowboys if we put them straight into service without any testing at all...

EDIT: Mind you I keep forgetting that Delhi, Stockholm and China have exactly the same operating environment as London Underground.

My comments are based on my view in comparison to other UK railways. I live in the UK, not Paris, China or anywhere else - there may well be a better practice model that could be applied to LU, but I'm merely a driver without that sort of influence. What I do know is LU does have to adhere to UK laws such as safety cases and it does have many unique characteristics that do set it apart - IMO, some of them are:

• Much of the network built in times when things like mobility access or 3 million passengers a day couldn't have been dreamed of
  
• Rolling stock can run continuously for up to 20 hours per day, up to 7 days a week
  
• Extremely frequent stopping (stations much closer together)
  
• Braking has to be far superior
  
• More signals, much closer together
  
• Different operating rules & procedures
  
• Rolling stock defect handing has to lend itself to being able to get a defective train moving without actually leaving the train (ie, in a tunnel)
  
• Differences in temperature between tunnel & open sections is far greater
  
• Differences in temperature in general (Summer v Winter), plus the tunnel effect, make for a wide range in which the track has to cope
  
• In tunnels, maintenance* can only take place within a very limited period of time
  
• In open sections, LU's current rules & procedures do not allow for heavy maintenance on an open-to-traffic section of track in the same way that NR's rule book does
  
• The existence of PPP on LU means there is a contractual obligation to carry out maintenance* activities in a particular way (some would argue quite rightly that it's an unnecessarily complicated situation)

I don't suppose many will agree with me, but they are just some of the reasons why I believe it's not as simple as some may think.

_{* = Maintenance can mean removal, installation, inspection, preventative action or defect rectification of a given asset be that track, rolling stock, signalling, cables, walls, or whatever else.}

Add to the above that there are countless amounts of drivers that also need type-training on this stock, experience of running it in peak along with morning and night duties, experience of running it along side the current A stock while the changeover takes place, and also alongside S stock for when the changeover has been made.

With all the best will in the world, you can't just build it and throw it into service, it needs to be perfect, and that (as I see it) is exactly what they are attaining. If it takes a week or ten years, as long as it's the perfected artefact, then someone has done their job right.

Plus let's not also forget that the original projected date was absolutely that, projected.

But the Delhi metro and the Chinese systems are new. It is much easier to get design the trains and infrastructure together. The new Stockholm trains are approximately the same length as the
earlier trains and are running on a system which is only been around for 60 years

The S stock has a longer train length than the sub surface stock it will be replacing, so there is little need to hurray with deliveries, until the works are underway to allow it to run. The Metropolitan has been around for nearly 150 years, with all the restrictions which come of having been the 'first' underground line.

So how would you plan to get the new, longer trains onto the existing infrastructure? And within your tight 'deadlines'?

Blimey, I leave you lot alone for two minutes... Thank you to everyone for your support and kind words, it does seem like everyone wants to knock us at the moment so it is nice to get a few positive comments.

We have now started integration testing which is all about ensuring that all the systems work as they have been designed to do in conjunction with other LU infrastructure. As an example we will test the platform based OPO equipment against the in-cab equipment, as well as the CSDE (Correct Side Door Enable) and SDO (Selective Door Opening) systems to name a few.

In the next month or so we will also be carrying out Trial Operations. We have put together a series of scripts which detail specific operational scenario's (such as a SPAD) and then we will run through them, in controlled conditions, in order to ensure that we can apply the appropriate rules and regulations without hinderance and also to prove that the train systems allow operational procedures to be applied. We will be testing these scripts on the simulator before using them to test the infrastructure against the train systems.

Testing is a little behind but not massively so, and Train 1 is a little delayed arriving in London but again not massively so. Train 1 is being used to test software updates (such as propulsion software) before coming down. We do not feel under anypressure to deliver to a specific date, rather we are keen to get things just as we want them first. This is not to say that we are not pushing to work to the prescribed program, it's just that we are prioritising getting everything right over meeting a time/date in someones diary. We have stated Summer 2010 and you will see train 3 in passenger service in Summer 2010.

Will we get everything right first time? I seriously doubt it! Will we have done everything, before entering passenger service, to mitigate all possible failures? Yes. Will we have contingency for when things do go wrong (and they will)? Definitely. We are trying our best under what can be at times difficult circumstances (after all we still need to run a train service on the Met), and in the most part I think people can see that.

I agree - an enormous job that some (and probably the vast majority of the public) think that you just order a new train and when it arrives plonk it on the tracks and let it go - if only life were that simple

I think the point i was making was not directed at the Project Team, who I'm sure are doing an admirable job given the constraints they're under , but more at the UK rail industry and the UK government in general. The excuse of aging existing infrastructure is a self fulfilling one . Look at the news today , Beijing - Shanghai to be delivered 1 year early, Thameslink -further delays. Thee sheer inefficiency and cost in the way major project are delivered in the UK is truly gobsmacking , and in the last 15 years its got even worse. is everybody in a daze in the UK?? Wake up , look at the rest of the world, and change .....