jazza
Guess my Favourite Number?
Posts: 196 
|
Post by jazza on Jan 13, 2014 2:38:32 GMT
On the recently created D stock withdrawals page it states that 17035 & 17077 have been swapped around at some stage and now carry each other's original numbers.
Can anybody shed any light on why this happened?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 13, 2014 9:30:05 GMT
Unit 7077 was involved in flooding at Richmond station, 7 August 1991, which obviously affected the motor cars to a great extent.
Soon after unit 7035 was damaged by mounting the platform at Whitechapel on 7 January 1992. Car 17035 sustained more damage.
So the units were reformed to provide a healthy unit quickly, 8035-17077-7035.
When the repairs to the Richmond flood damage and 17035 were complete another odd unit was formed 8077-17035-7077.
The two trailer cars then swapped identities to make the numbering standard.
It is remarkable how the D Stock fleet is still 100% intact after 34years of operation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 21:59:46 GMT
I am new to the forum, can anyone provide a date for re-numbering please. I would say it was pre Millenium. but onne never knows!
Thank you. Russ Evans.
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jan 14, 2014 23:17:45 GMT
Unit 7077 was involved in flooding at Richmond station, 7 August 1991, which obviously affected the motor cars to a great extent. Soon after unit 7035 was damaged by mounting the platform at Whitechapel on 7 January 1992. Car 17035 sustained more damage. So the units were reformed to provide a healthy unit quickly, 8035-17077-7035. When the repairs to the Richmond flood damage and 17035 were complete another odd unit was formed 8077-17035-7077. The two trailer cars then swapped identities to make the numbering standard. It is remarkable how the D Stock fleet is still 100% intact after 34years of operation. Yet in may be 2 years time they may well have all gone from the District Line, what a waste of a stock that could have gone on to last many more years in another place  |
|
jazza
Guess my Favourite Number?
Posts: 196
|
Post by jazza on Jan 15, 2014 2:37:33 GMT
Thank you Dstock7080 for the detailed reply. Very interesting. As yourself and DWS have noted it is remarkable that a fleet of so many trains should be virtually unscathed after 34 years and are set to be withdrawn when they could be used elsewhere.
The D stock always strike me as the sturdiest of the LU fleet and I certainly feel as if they have plenty life left in them. I am a big fan of the 73 stock and just out of interest how would those of you in the know compare the current state of the D stock with the 73's?
I would guess that the Piccadilly line trains have obviously done many more miles than the District Line trains, but are the D stock simply a victim of the A stock withdrawal and a standardisation of the fleet when in reality they could carry on for many more years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2014 8:53:44 GMT
I am new to the forum, can anyone provide a date for re-numbering please. I would say it was pre Millenium. but onne never knows! December 1994 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2014 9:11:49 GMT
One plan for them is still on the Harrogate News web site here - after clicking on the July 15 2011 link you need to scroll down to see the article. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 15, 2014 9:19:37 GMT
Thank you Dstock7080 for the detailed reply. Very interesting. As yourself and DWS have noted it is remarkable that a fleet of so many trains should be virtually unscathed after 34 years and are set to be withdrawn when they could be used elsewhere. The D stock always strike me as the sturdiest of the LU fleet and I certainly feel as if they have plenty life left in them. I am a big fan of the 73 stock and just out of interest how would those of you in the know compare the current state of the D stock with the 73's? I would guess that the Piccadilly line trains have obviously done many more miles than the District Line trains, but are the D stock simply a victim of the A stock withdrawal and a standardisation of the fleet when in reality they could carry on for many more years? Clip boards, pie charts, vector diagrams and bean counters come to mind  Not to say employment "oop North" |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 15, 2014 10:39:15 GMT
I understand the opportunity to standardise the SSL fleet, rather than have a new and separate production run in a few years' time, was part of it. Wasn't the D stock refurbishment a few years ago less comprehensive than for their older cousins? Another factor, surely, is the single leaf doors which increase dwell times - I don't know how much of a nuisance this has been on the sections shared with C stock, but the doors was certainly a factor in the early demise of the 1983 stock, which is in most respects (except the most obvious one!) very similar to D stock.
The Harrogate scheme seems to have gone quiet: probably when they realised the savings made by using second hand rolling stock with a limited service life were far outweighed by the costs of electrification on two systems (and consequent signal immunisation) at both Leeds and York, and for some miles out of them, the need for a new depot (as there are none on the route), and the conversion costs to re-arrange the current collection system, and to provide certain conveniences that Yorkshire people expect trains to have. Tram-train seems to be flavour of the month, although since the nearest tram system to the route is in Sheffield - Leeds' well-advanced plans to reintroduce them were canned more than eight years ago - it's difficult to see what advantage this would have over simple electrification on the same system as other lines in the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by motorman on Jan 15, 2014 21:42:22 GMT
Does anyone know when the first D Stock will be withdrawn. Could this be before or after the end of C Stock replacement?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jan 15, 2014 22:30:23 GMT
I believe in May/June this year!  |
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Jan 16, 2014 0:06:00 GMT
I suspect that if there's anything near irreparable damage done to any of the trains now, they will be on a one way trip to Eastleigh (that's assuming they're getting chopped there). I saw a unit at Acton on Tuesday performing what looked like a fairly odd move, like it was maneuvering in such a way as to go into the works.
|
|
paulsw2
My Train Runs For Those Who Wait Not Wait For Those That Run
Posts: 303
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jan 16, 2014 1:21:52 GMT
7123 has a large "dent" on front drivers side it is sitting in Ealing Common at the present time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 20:16:18 GMT
I was thinking that the crumbling 1972 trains on the Bakerloo should be replaced first, it would have been a more sensible solution then replacing sturdy newly-refurbished D-stock trains!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2014 21:46:14 GMT
7123 has a large "dent" on front drivers side it is sitting in Ealing Common at the present time Apparently it struck a tree during the recent storms. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jan 20, 2014 21:58:25 GMT
I was thinking that the crumbling 1972 trains on the Bakerloo should be replaced first, it would have been a more sensible solution then replacing sturdy newly-refurbished D-stock trains! I believe there are loading gauge issues South of Queens Park for the use of D stock on the Bakerloo!  But in all seriousness a lot of people have asked the same question. The D stock is a victim of creating a generic train fleet. It's a shame because I like the D stock. It will be for the chop no doubt. It is probably a little too old to be used elsewhere, a little like the previous R stock some of which was only 24 yrs old when replaced and was nearly sold to Athens! |
|
paulsw2
My Train Runs For Those Who Wait Not Wait For Those That Run
Posts: 303
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jan 21, 2014 2:53:39 GMT
7123 has a large "dent" on front drivers side it is sitting in Ealing Common at the present time Apparently it struck a tree during the recent storms. It has now been moved inside the sheds at Ealing Common I got some photos last week . |
|
|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Jan 21, 2014 7:22:24 GMT
'D' stock have single leaf doors and can't be converted to ATO operation. They need to go.
I still think it's a pity that all the SSR trains will end up with the same bar colour (yellow) though, and it will also be confusing for tourists at places like Earl's Court and Tower Hill!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2014 20:43:18 GMT
I am new to the forum, can anyone provide a date for re-numbering please. I would say it was pre Millenium. but onne never knows! December 1994 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2014 20:46:48 GMT
Thanks for the info of Dec 94. Set was seen at Mile End in its "new" formation on 23/01/14! Russ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 20:57:20 GMT
7123 has a large "dent" on front drivers side it is sitting in Ealing Common at the present time Apparently it struck a tree during the recent storms. I'm pleased to report that it's back in traffic. It was on the Wimbledon line today. John |
|
|
|
Post by mb2014 on Aug 7, 2014 14:57:37 GMT
According to Brian Hardy's books the number swap between these two trailers took place in December 1994. Is it therefore correct that 7035-17077-8035 and also 7077-17035-8077 were in service for a while? This is not clear from the "D Stock withdrawals" page
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Aug 7, 2014 19:45:36 GMT
I was thinking that the crumbling 1972 trains on the Bakerloo should be replaced first, it would have been a more sensible solution then replacing sturdy newly-refurbished D-stock trains! Same... unfortunately S stock won't fit in the tube tunnels and if you made it tube sized it would take away the advantage of ordering just one new type of train! |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Aug 11, 2014 14:52:40 GMT
According to Brian Hardy's books the number swap between these two trailers took place in December 1994. Is it therefore correct that 7035-17077-8035 and also 7077-17035-8077 were in service for a while? This is not clear from the "D Stock withdrawals" page Yes, that is certainly correct. (i will try and look how to reflect this on the withdrawal page) |
|
Not to say employment "oop North"
