|
|
Post by harlesden on Jun 19, 2010 11:40:07 GMT
Is it correct to assume there was nothing radically wrong with the 1938 stock other than its age?
Would it be possible, hypothetically speaking, to build a 1938 stock train identical to the original but with modern cab features and automated train announcements?
Is there any benefit to constantly buying sleek new trains when the much loved 1938's and A60's/A62's could simply be put back into production with modern features added.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebeezed on Jun 19, 2010 13:04:24 GMT
Trouble is, in these enlightened times, you run into all sorts of issues to do with modern 'Group standards' i.e, crashworthiness, energy consumption, passenger safety, recyclability and a myriad of other issues... Whereas its POSSIBLE to re-engineer old stock to modern standards, it wouldn't 'alf be expensive!! Possibly more so than to build new & its never going to be perfect even then. Old stock, such as the '38s on the IOW get around current legislation by having whats known as 'grandfather rights' to run on the network.. They were here before the modern standards were set & so are allowed to get round them...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jun 19, 2010 13:12:45 GMT
... and as to the adding of modern features, presumably the conversation goes along the lines of :
"oh, and since there's been a new development in motor technology, let's fit new motors, oh and whilst we're at it some of those more reliable doors, and brighter seats, and and a bit more streamlining...
(a little while later)
oh, we've got a completely different new train!".
|
|
|
|
Post by mowat on Jun 19, 2010 13:26:39 GMT
There can't have been any major faults with the original design, as it was updated and used again 20 years later for the 1959/62 Stock.
You could probably get round the legalization issues in the same way the A1 Trust did with the new steam loco Tornado, i.e. building a new vehicle to existing tried and tested designs. However this may only apply because it is a one off heritage vehicle, and not for everyday public service.
The question is, would the everyday users of the system want to be transported in a train that was designed 80 years ago, on a daily bases?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebeezed on Jun 19, 2010 13:35:44 GMT
Even Tornado had to go through the VAB (Vehicle acceptance body) tests before she got her Main line certificate, thats not a standard A1 by any means, and it took the best part of 5 years to thrash out the standards... From a surface railway point of view (I'm not sure how it works on LU metals) an IOW class 483 unit has a spec sheet thats set in stone, if someone were to pack one off to Hitachi with a note on the dash saying 'sort it out boys', when it came back it wouldn't be a class 483 any more... And, you guessed it, would have to apply to run on the national network all over again! Yes it is a pain...  |
|
|
|
Post by harlesden on Jun 19, 2010 15:16:05 GMT
My point was that passengers preferred the homeliness and comfort of the 1938 stock in comparison to the clinical coldness of modern carriages. I thought I had emphasised the fact that updating - aside from announcements and displays - be limited to the drivers cab. I confess I had not thought of motors.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebeezed on Jun 19, 2010 15:23:42 GMT
If you look at the LU museum's 38 stock train, yes it is comfy & homely... But those deep seats & wood cappings aren't particularly fireproof, Tungsten lighting contains non-tempered glass that becomes airborne shrapnel in a crash, wooden floors aren't fireproof (as the Escalators proved)... Modern stock could be better, but the passenger environment and aesthetics are quite a long way down on the list of priorities where they wouldn't have been years ago.. It would simply cost too much to consider all that...
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jun 19, 2010 15:38:01 GMT
I used to love travelling on the 1938 Stock on the Picc to and from work. It was just like a gentleman's club. Lovely. The creaking and other noises whilst travelling at speed between Acton and Hammersmith were another attraction. The 1956 Stock was almost but not quite a half-way house between the 1938 and 1959 Stocks with the extra wood in the cabins.
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jun 19, 2010 16:40:32 GMT
I would guess that it's far more cost effective to replace the entire fleet rather than keep upgrading bits and bobs on the trains.
As for rebuilding the 38's in modern style, it can't happen. Technology would mean the design is all wrong, things won't fit where they should and another million anomalies.
Slightly straying, I'd love to see the 73's kept, they are just about perfect for Piccadilly Line use, but it isn't going to happen. Time moves on, and so must we.
What would be nice is to see an odd 59 running up the Northern, a quick 73 up the Picc, and a 38 hurtling up the Bakerloo, but I suppose age and reliability run against that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 16:47:53 GMT
Sadly, as 'Tornado' has proved to me. If you build a modern version of something that was loved in the old days it simply becomes another cold, modern replica. While I applaud the efforts of the 'Tornado' team in recreating the image of an A1 it remains a replica. In my 'umble opinion it doesn't even smell right! The re-creation of older trains doesn't work because it can never be a true re-creation. Better to learn the lessons from older trains. Use what was good and bin what was bad. This, sadly, is something that 21st century train designers (or design committees) fail to do with extraordinary regularity! A whole new topic methinks.....
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jun 19, 2010 17:28:06 GMT
And then there's the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR). You need grab rails at doorways, colour contrasts everywhere, colour contrast in floors at doorways and seating areas, wheelchair areas. There's a maximum floor slope, CIS and a few other things that altogether make the 38TS interior style and feel very difficult indeed.
38TS was a fine bit of quite revolutionary engineering but you wouldn't today want to lose regenerative braking, three phase drives and so on. You don't want to mess with commutators and those filthy black carbon brushes do you!? Nor steel leaf spring maintenance and endlessly cracking bogie frames. It was brilliant but it wasn't perfect by any means.
However it's probably got a much better proportion of easily recyclable materials than modern trains I suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by mowat on Jun 19, 2010 18:23:45 GMT
Sadly, as 'Tornado' has proved to me. If you build a modern version of something that was loved in the old days it simply becomes another cold, modern replica. While I applaud the efforts of the 'Tornado' team in recreating the image of an A1 it remains a replica. In my 'umble opinion it doesn't even smell right! I think the idea behind Tornado was to build a new 50th member of the class, for modern mainline use, as opposed to building a replica of one of the original 49 (as the GWS at Didcot are doing with the new County of Glamorgan, which will be a replica of that particular loco). Subsequently they built in a few modifications to deal with known issues with the original members of the class. So in my opinion, this does not make it simply a replica of an A1 but a new one. |
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Jun 20, 2010 13:09:54 GMT
Excepting the issues about modern mania for garish colours to help a tiny number of people see where the doors are - I am not sure why people are going on about technical issues as if they can't be replicated in a modern rendition of a 1938 style train.
What is it about soft furnishings and softer lighting that means the engine in the bowels of the carriage cant be a modern one - or that regenerative braking has to be abandoned?
It seems to me that you could quite easily take a modern chassis and decorate the interior as you want to - either modern bland, art deco style, or anything at all frankly.
Whether such a thing would be economically viable is a different argument, but the technical issues postulated above seem a distraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jun 20, 2010 15:23:27 GMT
Excepting the issues about modern mania for garish colours to help a tiny number of people see where the doors are - I am not sure why people are going on about technical issues as if they can't be replicated in a modern rendition of a 1938 style train. What is it about soft furnishings and softer lighting that means the engine in the bowels of the carriage cant be a modern one - or that regenerative braking has to be abandoned? It seems to me that you could quite easily take a modern chassis and decorate the interior as you want to - either modern bland, art deco style, or anything at all frankly. Whether such a thing would be economically viable is a different argument, but the technical issues postulated above seem a distraction. The original post was about continuing to repair and refurbish old trains rather than your implication of older style looks and feel with modern technology underneath and behind the scenes. Generally I like your idea, but taking the A stock example from the original post, it has been a really good Met line train interior, but again building a new one you would need to provide RVAR compliance which would reduce the number of seats a bit. More controversially, LU wanted open, wide through inter-car gangways, so that reduces seat space. Also a 1m wide throughway from cab to cab, and seats don't count as seats unless they are at least 495mm wide. So the A stock ones aren't 3+2 across with this rule, they are only 2+1 ! Taking this slight nonsense to the conclusion, you can then say that S stock has more "seats" than A stock. Not me saying it of course. There is lots good about S stock though. The ride is miles better for just one example. Even for standing... |
|
|
|
Post by harlesden on Jun 20, 2010 15:35:38 GMT
Actually got a rather nice pic of the S stock interior but I assumed pics had already been posted before I came on board.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 20, 2010 15:50:56 GMT
When the A stock was built, the 17 1/2 inches for each seat was only adequate in 1960, but like all things, it was all part of the keeping people happy. It's a shame the S8 trains couldn't have been provided with 2+2 seating for most of their saloon. Although it would only be an extra 2 seats per car, I'm not sure what the ambiance will be like looking into the side of someones face for an hour (or vice versa), only time will tell....
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jun 20, 2010 17:00:28 GMT
It occurred to me that, if we were having this debate in 1920 about the new stock needed for the Morden and Edgware extensions, we would be saying, "Why don't we just update the Gate Stock with new upholstery and a bright red paint job? We could put air doors in the sides and give them e.p. brakes and new motors." Well, they actually tried to. Back in 1920, they rebuilt some gate stock cars with air doors but it cost them a fortune, proved very difficult, took two designs to get a workable solution and they were advised by the engineer in charge, "We must never do this again". Next time they needed better cars, they bought new and called it "new standard stock".
|
|
|
|
Post by geebeezed on Jun 21, 2010 11:54:20 GMT
Lets not forget though that once upon a time all those classic '38 stock trains and the A stock were spangly & new & modern... I imagine if there had been a Tube forum in those days, people would've been lamenting the loss of their T stock and whatever the 38s replaced, the new units not being as good/reliable/comfortable as their forebears! Its just Human nature I guess... In my group of mates I'm a Railwayman & a couple of them are enthusiasts, we're always having arguments about the new stock being new & not what they're used to... I'm usually driving the 'You'll be there with everyone else waving a hanky when the 'new' trains last run comes!!' argument!  |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 24, 2010 23:18:26 GMT
You say that, but not all trains have become more appealing with age. What about the class 313s? Traveled on one today, utterly nothing to admire inside the carriage atall. Yet they were once new aswell; one wonders if the people who said 'theyre ugly' 30-odd years ago are still saying it, because they wouldnt be wrong!
If you build something that looks cheap it'll always look cheap, whereas something that looks expensive or revolutionary will in time more than likely gain a cult following.
Thing is you want the precision and safety of today with the elegance and craft-love of yesterday.
But there are a number of things that could improve aesthetics markedly without affecting opperation.
|
|
