Why has the district line been such a low priority

Who wants electronic boards when those wonderful old blue enamel signs with an illuminated arrow work quite well?

At least the D stock got refurbished.

Many stations on the Uxbridge branch on the "up" platform had wooden boards that would read "City, all stations to Harrow-on-the-Hill", "City, all stations to Wembley Park", "Baker Street, all stations to Wembley Park", "Baker Street, all stations to Wembley Park. Change at Rayners Lane for Piccadilly Line", and "Piccadilly Line". There might have been other boards than these.

I agree with your comment, but I think its mostly about looking more 'modern' and new these days.

Speaking of the Met, I've seen a BTH-badged control box attached to one of the aspects at Amersham - BTH ceased to be in 1959, so that's also quite an elderly piece of kit!

(BTH = British Thomson-Houston, of course!)

A few years before it's planned to be replaced. I think it's quite a waste of money to be honest. I know they are keeping the D stock trains in service longer, due to that reason, but I think they should of been refurbished at the same time as all other stocks, unless their wasn't enough money to pay for the refurbishment.

I suppose if the plan to move them abroad after service goes ahead, it won't be so bad.

What it lacks in priority for upgrade, it compensates in priority for service. I was annoyed to sit in a Pic train at Acton Town for more than 5 minutes watching two - count em two - District trains arrive and then depart ahead of us while we wait for our turn to get access to Ealing Common.

If we weren't so English, we'd have a revolution over this kind of thing.

Not to sure about the refurbishment issue tbh; whereas its assumed now its a half life thing (probably a case where a rough and ready nickname has since been propogated and reapplied on a far more litteral level), theres little point in sticking to that in stone, and possibly its a philosophy against traditional LT thinking. The D stock argueably needed a refresh less than the 1992 tube stock needed and needs, but was a better candidate for it because it was the odd man out being silver and 'old school'. Thus there would be more to gain in terms of corporate image for its refurb. The D stock, for its few failings, is still one of the last products of the old LT tradition. Was it designed with anything more than a vauge nominal life expectancy in mind? Or was it just designed well to last as long as needed. The trouble is that the revolution of a disposable society has affected everything now. I know that, say, the S stock has been designed for a life of 40 years, and the 92 ts had its origins somewhere in a similar timescale (not that I'm comparing the two!!) but the difference is could they do 60 years if circumstances required? I'd wager that the D stock could almost as much as the A stock could. Thus for that reason to rigidly stick to an assumed 30 year life for stock doesnt quite make that much sense, because if the quality of design is that good perhaps its the 'mid life' refurb that could have actually been postponed...

Idle musings however.