Why all the hate on the 92 stock?

NealW sums it up well. When you compare them to the 62’s which went before, there’s no comparison in my view.

I was working on the Central Line when these things arrived. At first there was a degree of initial excitement. The test runs of the Waterloo & City line stock and the first 92 stock public runs between White City & Liverpool Street stand out as notable events in my career at LUL. Although as deliveries stepped up my personal view of them started to decline.

We were told that unlike the 62’s, these lightweight energy efficient trains were designed to be modular, so they could be adapted, converted and modernised as time went on. The inference was that they could be heavily refurbished, easily changing their overall appearance and thus extending their total life span.

But unlike previous designs where this was indeed possible, I think the bad build quality might well rule this out.

Yes the driver has a better environment (the cab is about three times bigger than a 62 – with a lovely armchair 'to boot'!), but interior wise they have rock hard seats which seem too close to the floor, width constricting arm rests (yes they had them initially), loud ambient noises from the saloon blowers, and decidedly poor interior lighting with bulbs placed behind panels which cast shadows over the messy interior design. All of which IMO made them an unpleasant train to travel on.

I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I initially nicknamed them the Lego train as from a distance they looked like Lego bricks on the move. The 62s were looking shabby, but when you looked at them and the subsequent stock which arrived in the late 60s, 70’s and early 80’s, you could see the clear blood line of London Transport design at perhaps its best.

But the 92’s stood out as something quite odd which looked like an off the peg design, completely against the grain as to what had gone before. I am sure LUL had a hand in the design of the 92s, but it looked like something designed on CAD which works well on a PC, but is not very ascetically pleasing in real life.

When the 92’s had spread to the remainder of the line and the balance of numbers was tipping against the 62s, I would deliberately wait for a 62 rather than travel on one of these. Unfortunately my nutty ways meant it took ages to get around the group!

On a more practical basis, they seemed to have more than their fair share of teething problems. The P-Way would often find bits of these trains in the tunnels. Thankfully at that time only small parts fell off. Because of the wheel profile they also damaged the track. The most noticeable being between Bank & St Pauls which necessitated an emergency closure one weekend to replace the track.

Once the fleet reached about two-thirds of the total run out, winter set in and hit us with a very hard frost. Unfortunately the 92s had defective de-icing equipment and a number had difficulties dealing with the cold. Luckily there was a few spare serviceable 62s about and the depots managed to turn out a fair number of 62s which turned the balance back in favour of the 62. Sadly this was a short lived venture. But IMO it proved the worth of the then fading 62’s.

Looking back, at lot was achieved during that time. We had new trains, new ATO signalling (something that had not been installed on LUL since the Vic line opened in 1968), but it was a painful time in which to work on the Central. A lot of lessons were learned which have been incorporated into subsequent train design. I think the 95 stock is probably the most agreeable of the recent tube designs. A far cry from the abysmal 92s.

They really are an embarrassment to British Manufacturing. They've had to have so much money spent on them over the years just to stop them falling apart. When you think of the 95/96 t/s coming up to their mid life, they've not required the TLC the 92s need. Wait for the next heat wave, you'll surely hate them then

The one predicted for this coming Wednesday afternoon.

What with the weather being as it is probably not this year, or the next, but we do get them - prolonged humid ones in London. In fact it doesn't really have to be a heatwave, those trains easily get too hot.

Well I get off the Northern at Bank/Tottenham Court Road depending on which branch train comes first, but tomorrow I have to go to Putney early in the morning, so I have to suffer from Notting Hill Gate to Chancery Lane... Right, it's spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch... got it!

Ah yes, sorry. That's me getting Putney and Richmond mixed up in my head again.

Actually less - much less power/weight. As I'm a long way away, I'll take your (and many others') word for it that the 92ts is woefully less than ideal.

I remember vividly the Chancery Lane incident, and the ludicrous attitude of H&SE. How many passengers suffered injuries and stress while they struggled to find alternative means of transport during the total closure. Probably a heap more than if another traction motor came unstuck.

Bad engineering, not fail-safe, not fail-graceful. And no way any other stock could be roped in to provide emergency service, sadly including north of Stratford where there are limited alternatives. So add bad management and poor design for a fault-tolerant recoverable service. Heads, lots of them, should have rolled.

Hope the right people are listening - about stock dedicated to a route, with no viable back-up!!!

You can hardly fault something that was introduced 20 years ago for having 20 year old electronics.

Is very hot on the 92TS. I don't hate on them as much as others do, but it is clear they weren't quite up to the same par as other stock - even disregarding the bogie debacle, the door open sensors go off too easily, and I've on several occasions seen units in service with one 2-car set in the middle completely unpowered (emergency lights only, no DVA or door sounders etc.) - quite alarming to travel on.
Still, all units have their flaws, and in fairness, I find the ride on the 92TS very acceptable - assuming someone's not leaning on a door the acceleration is fast and smooth (go on a C69 after a 92TS to see why this is worth discussing!), and they're actually fairly quiet at full line speed in a tunnel, it's only really the sharp curves in certain areas that make things unpleasant, and the 95TS are no better at dealing with that sort of thing.

I really don't think the interiors are bad, but they are dimly lit compared to some other stock (tbf, only recent, or recently refurbished stock, I thought the 67/72 were dimly lit too), but depending on who you ask, that's either a good thing or a bad thing (see: people complaining about the 'clinical' bright interiors of the S stock). Do you know, I even prefer the original red moquette design

You must be 'vertically challenged'. If I stand by the doors I have to bend my neck at 45 degrees. Oh, and the windows are so heavily tinted it's difficult to make out the station names on the platform side. I'd have thought a problem for the partially sighted.

Must be more of a challenge to keep ducking and dodging 'low' things!

I've never found the windows to be tinted though.

Indeed. One shudders to think what the injuries may have been like during the peak!