A Stock withdrawals - Discussion

i guess today is the first day we can officially say that the a stock has started to be replaced

s stock now runs to aldgate in regular service? so i assume the A's are going to start going at a much quicker rate?

I know I shouldn't respond, but just for a laugh…


Oh no, they are and will be replaced. Replaced by something much more capable of doing the job. In a very short period of time they will be completely forgotten by all but a few staff and enthusiasts.
You must have terrible trouble when hailing a black taxi now that the Hansom Cab has been discontinued.


Yes it is, but do feel free to gain years of railway operational experience and then come back and submit your own design. 'This' line doesn't have the longest journey times of the SSR either.


No it's not, it fully meets they expectations of those who designed and built them which in turn means it meets the needs of our railway for the next 40 years.


Speed is definitely important. We are in the business of moving customers from A to B and most customers want to spend as little time in the space inbetween those two points as possible.





Not for us, only for you it would seem.

It wasn't self praise, just confidence in the design process and final product. You make a fair point about time being the ultimate decider on these issues, but we have tried to apply the right people and the right lessons learned in order to tip the odds in our favour.
We spent 5 years getting this train to the point of passenger service and poured a lot of time and effort into it in that time. The 378's rolled off the production line next door in a third of that time.

I actually think the S stock are better looking than the A stock. I like the S stock's design and think it's a clever design. They look better than London's bendy buses.

However, although the A stock aren't as attractive for me to look at I love how the design has lasted 50 years and isn't as dated as the 1959 stock, it seems like great engineering.

Once again may I point out that LU is a critical transport resource for the UK economy, not a life-size train set for enthusiasts. It exists for the benefit of those going to and from work Mon-Fri, not for enthusiasts travelling around on Sunday afternoons complaining because their seat isn't perpendicular to the window. If the S stock makes it easier, quicker and more comfortable for Met line commuters to get to work, it is better. End of.

it may not be the longest journey times but it has greater distances between stations, amersham/chesham being the furthest away from london then any.also this line has two operators using the same line in part.

it would be surprising if these would last forty years as bronzonion commented given the what looks to be complex electronics also.

To those who would prefer that the A stock would be used for a much longer period of time I have a few questions:

• Given a finite budget how would you choose to increase overall line capacity?
  
• Given the need to upgrade signalling (not necessarily ATO) to improve throughput, how would you get the A Stock to work considering the problems the (newer) Jub 96 stock has had in integrating with the newer signalling?
  
• Given that older equipment (trains or otherwise) require more maintenance, how would you propose to keep the number of A Stock available at any given point consistent without reducing the number of services per day?
  

If you're simply not happy with the design to the S Stock how would come up with a 'perfect design' that satisfies the various passenger needs that occur on this line while accommodating greater numbers of passengers as forecast for future years?l

i think while its sad the a60 stock is now leaving is not the whole issue,there are wider arguments too, namely the seating arrangments and the fact that little of the successful characteristics have been incorporated into this new train,the line runs a long way from central london and nearly verging on the south midlands area and thus deserves the attention that was afforded the a stock in early stages. this does not appear to be the case with what looks to be standardisation on various lines.

there are other gripes to namely the open design which appears to be given little thought which one incident of emergency instead of being (possibly) contained in one carriage has the potential to affect the whole train.

I understand how wonderful the A Stock has been but I have to agree with malcolmffc on the fact that it is not a life sized train set for a thousand more enthusiasts like me, but a life sized train set for millions of commuters as well. The Underground has a poor history of accessibility for wheelchairs and there are no wheelchair bay areas unlike the S Stock. Also, the maintenance costs are going through the roof because of what appears to be a bathtub scenario, where parts are now harder to obtain to keep the current trains in working order. If TfL was to back down and keep the A60/62 Stock commuters would have to wait longer for a less crowded train. Also, the racks are causing issues with lighting which is why they decided that for the S Stock the luggage would go under the seats in the tranverse seating section. Finally, the alarm system of the old trains is not a two way system.

My apologies. I realized I put the video in the wrong section.

And I'm sure half a century ago people had just the same thoughts about the end of the T stock (and such)...

And a half century before that over the end of real Met trains (an A class 4-4-0T and rigid 8 wheel coaches)...

And will in half a century's time when the day of the S stock draws to a close...

I keep seeing the wide gangways mentioned as a 'flaw' in the design of the S stock, but I've never seen a reasoned argument with an example of when such a design would be worse.

In the case of a derailment or collision, the design of the gangways between the cars is more likely to keep the cars in line than with self contained cars (an alternative would include the use of articulation with one bogie shared between cars, which has almost certainly saved lives in the few high speed derailments on the TGV/Eurostar network in France).

In the case of an explosion (however caused), the open design will lead to a more rapid dissipation of forces involved, compared to the older stocks.

Whatever the reason for an incident, the continuous open design of the trains allows much easier evacuation, either from part of the train in a platform or via the steps at the ends of the train, especially for anyone being carrier in a stretcher.

I would be interested if anyone in favour of rebuilding stock, rather than replacing it, could come up with a reasonably priced way of fitting such evacuation measures (including the end steps) to an old design of train.

Front end steps were retrofitted to the 73s quite nicely!

me too