Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 21:02:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 21:05:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 21:09:44 GMT
A very short sighted and sad move. I didn't have much faith in the LTM's attitude towards post 1938 stock, now I have none. This is a travesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by carltona on Jun 11, 2015 21:10:39 GMT
A pity it is being referred to as a "tube train", but then the general public will not know any different.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 11, 2015 21:28:59 GMT
Looks fake to me! I think it is a mock up to be honest. It looms brand new not 37 years old!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 21:43:03 GMT
The first pictures are CGI, however the last one looks fairly convincing. Hopefully it is just a mockup!
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 11, 2015 21:57:56 GMT
The last picture does look unfortunately real, looking at the nearside cab pillar and the details on it. Not the sort of thing you'd put on a mockup
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 11, 2015 23:40:10 GMT
Of course the preserved car only demonstrated the refurbished seating format. We've already lost the original transverse seating layout. Except in photographic format!
Maybe next month I'll make my long-planned C stock memories YouTube film which will show this.
Simon
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 12, 2015 8:33:24 GMT
Threads merged
I have a heard a rumour on Twitter that the car is not actually 5721, but another that has been renumbered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 9:12:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 12, 2015 10:04:48 GMT
And more evidence in this Tweet that 5721 is extant at the Museum! Taken just minutes ago: |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 12, 2015 10:24:59 GMT
Why give it a fake number?
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jun 12, 2015 11:18:42 GMT
Perhaps we should ask the developers, especially as the agents don't seem to be using the renumbered unit as a selling point: rentocstockWonder if they paid for having that number-sort of a cherished mark transfer? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 12, 2015 13:28:24 GMT
Does 5721 have any significance to the number of the building?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 14:16:26 GMT
Not too sure if anyone else noticed but the webpage now says it is a replica of 5721.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 16:55:31 GMT
If you looked at the pictures on IanVisits the number is clearly not in New Johnston
|
|
Rich32
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Rich32 on Jun 14, 2015 5:40:30 GMT
If you looked at the pictures on IanVisits the number is clearly not in New Johnston What good eyesight! I'd never have noticed that as the photo's a bit blurry. Nice avi by the way  |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jun 14, 2015 7:40:08 GMT
Not too sure if anyone else noticed but the webpage now says it is a replica of 5721. I just looked at the web page (8:35 Sunday) and then the thread afterwards, and wondered if anyone else had read the page properly, as there were so many complaints about using the original when it clearly said it was a replica. This early on a Sunday morning it didn't occur to me that the sneaky blighters might have edited the page after causing outrage amongst underground aficionados. |
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Jun 14, 2015 10:19:29 GMT
This early on a Sunday morning it didn't occur to me that the sneaky blighters might have edited the page after causing outrage amongst underground aficionados. The sneaky blighter in question made it clear in the text that the article had been edited. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jun 14, 2015 10:40:19 GMT
This early on a Sunday morning it didn't occur to me that the sneaky blighters might have edited the page after causing outrage amongst underground aficionados. The sneaky blighter in question made it clear in the text that the article had been edited. Groan. That was supposed to be a vaguely humorous dig at my own lack of concentration, not a suggestion that anyone else had done something underhand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2015 21:21:00 GMT
I managed to grab some photo's of the Unit (well half unit this week) some of them are a bit blurry as they had to be done quick. If you look at the photo from the rear looking at the roof structure it definitley seems to be a genuine DM but obviously not the real 5721. I have been doing some digging to no avail yet of the real identity of this DM but will continue I dont seem to be able to post image from my sons flikr so here is the link
Andy |
|
|
|
Post by mb2014 on Jun 23, 2015 18:26:34 GMT
Going by the withdrawals/scrapping list if it is a genuine car and not 5721 then it can only be 5701 or 5720 which are the only ones not scrapped unless they acquired one from the scrapper and kept it very quiet
|
|
|
|
Post by mb2014 on Aug 6, 2015 22:19:38 GMT
Latest UNDERGROUND NEWS says it may be 5595 but this requires confirmation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 15:33:02 GMT
I can confirm that the main body of the part-motor coach is not from a scrap C Stock, but a very professionally made wooden mock-up. However, there are many 'bits and pieces' that have come from a real C Stock, the driving desk, for example, and the roof. On the other hand the miniature circuit breakers on the offside console is not C Stock, nor are the window wipers, which came from an HGV. The destination is a made up sticker. The tread plates are 'C77' to reflect the number on the mock-up. So 5595 (or anything else for that matter) it is not, other than some equipment/fittings from 'something' C Stock (although I believe the transverse seats maybe from D Stock). All in all, a superb job has been done and fooled many, including yours truly, for some time!!
|
|
