|
|
Post by ijmad on Oct 17, 2020 12:20:32 GMT
One of the proposals in TfL's recent 2020 Investment to get London and the UK moving again that hasn't been much discussed (because the main point was the lack of Bakerloo line extension money) is their proposal to procure a new fleet of trains for the Jubilee line. The report says the new fleet would provide "A capacity uplift of 25 per cent". This sounds like the number I've seen elsewhere for New Tube for London. Given the timescale involved it would seem logical to guess these new trains would be added on to that order. But what about PEDs? If a new carriage/door configuration were to appear on the Jubilee that would require reconfiguration and this would not be a simple task. I assume the line could be shut for a month! This would seem very disruptive. Unless it's going to be a custom fleet with the same door configuration (although this might preclude walkthrough carriages). Or just a guess, maybe they could remove the existing PEDs over a period of months, swap to the new fleet, let them bed in, then install new PEDs. Also from the report points out one of the reasons is "A number of recent issues with Jubilee line trains" presumably referencing the issues with cracks found last year. However they go on to say the existing fleet would be "used on the Northern line". The trains do look similar but from what I've read previously they're quite different under the floor. Although at least this would mean a consistent look and door configuration across the line. But what of the mechanical problems with the stock? It seems like a major justification for looking to a new fleet is because of the issues they're seeing, but at the same time they want to cascade these trains elsewhere. Are they really going to last that long? It doesn't seem like the entire existing fleet would be needed to improve frequency on the Northern line, so perhaps the idea is just to pick the 10 or so trains in the very best condition. Anyone have any further information or thoughts on this? |
|
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 Oct 17, 2020 14:33:12 GMT
Possible ways to phase the changeover of PEDs have been discussed multiple times previously and the new fleet is being discussed in at least one other thread at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Oct 17, 2020 16:14:55 GMT
I was thinking it was a disguise to get some cascaded stock for the Bakerloo Line. New trains for Jub, then cascade old Jub to Northern, which needs extra trains for the extension to Battersea. Then spare old Jub or Northern could goto Bakerloo. I was figuring something like that. But all just guess-work.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 17, 2020 19:28:22 GMT
I was thinking it was a disguise to get some cascaded stock for the Bakerloo Line. New trains for Jub, then cascade old Jub to Northern, which needs extra trains for the extension to Battersea. Then spare old Jub or Northern could goto Bakerloo. I was figuring something like that. But all just guess-work. And bring the IOW 38s back to the Northern Line?  |
|
|
|
Post by grumpycat on Jul 9, 2021 22:10:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jul 9, 2021 23:29:05 GMT
Platform Edge Doors (PEDs) on the Jubilee line are now 20 years and are becoming increasingly unreliable. Replacing them like for like would be problematic because that would lock in the spacing of doors for a rolling stock that is already more than halfway through its projected life cycle.
Therefore the solution has been mooted for new trains for the Jubilee line based on the design of the 2024 stock with new PEDs matching that design to deliver value for money as well as get the capacity uplifts that World Class Capacity was supposed to give before it was axed.
The displaced 1996 stock fleet would then have their 7th cars (implicated in the cracking saga) removed and bolster the Northern line fleet enabling up to a potential 36tph service to operate across all branches providing upgrades at Camden Town are forthcoming. Once again this was once the remit of World Class Capacity before it was canned. Whilst the 96 TS are mechanically different from the 95 TS and would require different maintenance regimes, they benefit from being the same length, similar cab ergonomics and modifications for the same variant of Thales Communications Based Train Control.
|
|
|
|
Post by grumpycat on Jul 10, 2021 0:08:36 GMT
how many 96 stock trains would go on the northern and if some are left over what would happen to the rest?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jul 10, 2021 0:19:06 GMT
The full 36 tph service on both branches of the Northern line with required separation at Camden Town would require a maximum of 42 additional trains. This would also require modifications at serval locations to increase stabling capacity.
The 20 something surplus units and trailer cars of 1996 stock would presumably be stripped for spares or any other salvageable components and then sent for scrap.
|
|
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 Jul 10, 2021 1:12:59 GMT
It possible that the remaining units would be offered for sale somewhere, but the market for small fleets of used tube stock is very limited and the Isle of Wight is unlikely to be looking for any more new trains in the relevant time period, so it's unlikely anyone will want them. The LTM wont be interested until they are withdrawn from the network completely. A few individual cars might make their way to schools, fire fighter training colleges, etc. but the scrapyard is the most probable destination for the majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 10, 2021 5:38:19 GMT
This was the first plan from Andy Byford, although the NTfL plans have listed the coming four lines for new trains since the PPP collapse! It was prompted by the unexpected service implications of detected cracking on the current fleet, which still require a long-term fix, and the missed opportunity for Upgrade 2 boosts to the Northern and Jubilee lines. The PPP contracts seemed to imply a 30 year life span for trains and signalling. The alternative for electronic trains may be the high-cost CLIP programme for Central line trains which only provides a short-term life extension. Since this proposal we have seen another year of depressed travel demand, with an unknown outcome. The Camden Town station rebuild appears to be dropped see here which would perhaps limit a Northern line boost to 30tph, still 25% up, with a further wait for a new fleet there before separation of the branches? This would only need around 17 more trains, cutting costs of stabling and maintenance modifications, etc. But will future demand return to justify such upgrades? The subsequent budget submission again puts the Bakerloo ahead of the Jubilee in the queue for new trains. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jul 10, 2021 10:06:41 GMT
Any other extensions planned? Perhaps more pertinent... has anyone found the magical money tree that will find all this? (I'm willing to throw 2/- or even as much as 2/6 into the begging bowl but can't fund it all by myself!) |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 13, 2021 23:24:22 GMT
The full 36 tph service on both branches of the Northern line with required separation at Camden Town would require a maximum of 42 additional trains. This would also require modifications at serval locations to increase stabling capacity. The 20 something surplus units and trailer cars of 1996 stock would presumably be stripped for spares or any other salvageable components and then sent for scrap. That sounds like madness to scrap them, total waste of money. I would rather see them used on the Waterloo & City line and not introduce the New Tube for London on that line. |
|
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 Jul 14, 2021 0:34:33 GMT
Would they fit? Based on the figures on Wikipedia a four-car 1992 stock train is 65m long, a four-car 1996 stock car would be 71.08m. 6 metres is quite a bit longer, especially as I understand the depot is quite cramped as it is and there are some tight curves on the line so overthrow would need to be calculated.
Even if they do fit (I don't know), how much would it cost to convert them to four-car trains? Would that be value for money given that the trains are already 25 years old - how much life would they have left? How does that compare with the 1992 stock, which are only about 4-5 years older.
Changing the trains on the W&C is also a costly and disruptive activity, so don't forget to factor in doing that an additional time into the calculations.
I'm far from an expert and I have no figures to work with, but I would be surprised if the economics came close to stacking up.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 14, 2021 11:02:21 GMT
Would they fit? Based on the figures on Wikipedia a four-car 1992 stock train is 65m long, a four-car 1996 stock car would be 71.08m. 6 metres is quite a bit longer, especially as I understand the depot is quite cramped as it is and there are some tight curves on the line so overthrow would need to be calculated. Even if they do fit (I don't know), how much would it cost to convert them to four-car trains? Would that be value for money given that the trains are already 25 years old - how much life would they have left? How does that compare with the 1992 stock, which are only about 4-5 years older. Changing the trains on the W&C is also a costly and disruptive activity, so don't forget to factor in doing that an additional time into the calculations. I'm far from an expert and I have no figures to work with, but I would be surprised if the economics came close to stacking up. If it is costly then why change them for the new tube for London, they hardly do much miles etc on the W&C, I find it a waste of money |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Jul 14, 2021 11:26:48 GMT
Would they fit? Based on the figures on Wikipedia a four-car 1992 stock train is 65m long, a four-car 1996 stock car would be 71.08m. 6 metres is quite a bit longer, especially as I understand the depot is quite cramped as it is and there are some tight curves on the line so overthrow would need to be calculated. Even if they do fit (I don't know), how much would it cost to convert them to four-car trains? Would that be value for money given that the trains are already 25 years old - how much life would they have left? How does that compare with the 1992 stock, which are only about 4-5 years older. Changing the trains on the W&C is also a costly and disruptive activity, so don't forget to factor in doing that an additional time into the calculations. I'm far from an expert and I have no figures to work with, but I would be surprised if the economics came close to stacking up. If it is costly then why change them for the new tube for London, they hardly do much miles etc on the W&C, I find it a waste of money Faster boarding and alighting and more trains per hour able to run. |
|
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 Jul 14, 2021 12:11:52 GMT
I'm far from an expert and I have no figures to work with, but I would be surprised if the economics came close to stacking up. If it is costly then why change them for the new tube for London, they hardly do much miles etc on the W&C, I find it a waste of money[/quote] The 1992 stock will need to be replaced at some point, and it's more economical to add a small number of trains to a larger order than it is to buy a very small number of trains later (it's why the line has 1992 stock in the first place - BR just ordered some more of the trains LU were having built). In addition to the reasons Chris L gives, there is also the issues of staff training and familiarisation - the drivers come from the Central line, so the W&C using the same trains as that line means that they only have to be trained on and be familiar with one type of stock, especially for defect handling. Some drivers like driving the W&C, some don't so the latter trade most of their shifts down there to the former. If the trains are different then the occasional drivers will encounter failures of the W&C stock far less frequently meaning they will be less adept at dealing with them promptly - if the trains are the same all drivers will be roughly equally familiar with the failure modes and how to resolve them. One more issue is maintenance. If the trains on the W&C are the same as those on another line then there can be a common pool of spare parts, consumables, etc. which is a lot more economical than having two smaller (one very small) pool. |
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Jul 14, 2021 18:24:29 GMT
I think something will surely be cascaded to the Bakerloo line. Not sure whether it'll be Northern or Jub stock. Jub stock is 7 car, as is Bakerloo, so more likely to be that in my opinion, plus easy transfer available at Baker Street. But I don't think anyone knows for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 14, 2021 21:22:03 GMT
I think something will surely be cascaded to the Bakerloo line. Not sure whether it'll be Northern or Jub stock. Jub stock is 7 car, as is Bakerloo, so more likely to be that in my opinion, plus easy transfer available at Baker Street. But I don't think anyone knows for sure. Northern & Jubilee have fewer longer cars than traditional standard cars, which gives greater overhang on curves, a problem on the Bakerloo! Also 7-car Jubilee train is nearer 8-car traditional train, although the extra 7th cars, which were once inserted, could be removed. As mentioned above, the last budget submission again puts the Bakerloo ahead of the Jubilee in the queue for new trains. link |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 15, 2021 1:36:14 GMT
The Jubilee line has enough trains to replace the Bakerloo and partially boost the Northern line fleets if they are displaced by a new delivery. The Bakerloo is a back way of LU with no pressing passenger demand, with the last of the simpler old trains easier to maintain for an extended life. It is unclear how long the old trains can be economically retained. However, there is also a wish to delay a replacement fleet until the Lewisham extension is underway, so that a common fleet can be ordered. This would be better than one order for the current service and then, say ten years later, as many again for the extension, since they will likely be technically improved by then with compatibility problems. Would adaption of the current Bakerloo line for 6-cars of longer Jubilee trains save life-extension costs on the present old trains, and allow delay to an order for new Bakerloo trains until the Lewisham extension is certain? There may be need for planned gap fillers at some curved platforms, and a widening of the tunnels on some curves!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Jul 15, 2021 7:54:25 GMT
Would they fit? Based on the figures on Wikipedia a four-car 1992 stock train is 65m long, a four-car 1996 stock car would be 71.08m. 6 metres is quite a bit longer, especially as I understand the depot is quite cramped as it is and there are some tight curves on the line so overthrow would need to be calculated. Even if they do fit (I don't know), how much would it cost to convert them to four-car trains? Would that be value for money given that the trains are already 25 years old - how much life would they have left? How does that compare with the 1992 stock, which are only about 4-5 years older. Changing the trains on the W&C is also a costly and disruptive activity, so don't forget to factor in doing that an additional time into the calculations. I'm far from an expert and I have no figures to work with, but I would be surprised if the economics came close to stacking up. The length of the car lift at Waterloo is a key factor when determining the trains that can operate on the W&C. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 15, 2021 10:32:57 GMT
The Jubilee line has enough trains to replace the Bakerloo and partially boost the Northern line fleets if they are displaced by a new delivery. The Bakerloo is a back way of LU with no pressing passenger demand, with the last of the simpler old trains easier to maintain for an extended life. It is unclear how long the old trains can be economically retained. However, there is also a wish to delay a replacement fleet until the Lewisham extension is underway, so that a common fleet can be ordered. This would be better than one order for the current service and then, say ten years later, as many again for the extension, since they will likely be technically improved by then with compatibility problems. Would adaption of the current Bakerloo line for 6-cars of longer Jubilee trains save life-extension costs on the present old trains, and allow delay to an order for new Bakerloo trains until the Lewisham extension is certain? There may be need for planned gap fillers at some curved platforms, and a widening of the tunnels on some curves! I suspect that, subject to 96 stock being able to economically be made to fit on the Bakerloo, this is exactly what will happen. But I don’t think it’s on the radar yet. |
|
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 Jul 15, 2021 10:42:12 GMT
There isn't a car lift at Waterloo anymore, and hasn't been since the International station was built. There is a hole in the depot roof through which trains are raised and lowered using a crane. It would not be impossible to make this hole longer, although not by a massive amount. I haven't yet been able to find dimensions for it, but I have found that the train technical specification for the deep tube upgrade program specifies: Assuming four cars of equal length, the maximum car length for the W&C is therefore 17.55m, 1996 stock cars are 17.77m long and so will not fit. Six cars of 1996 stock are 106.62 metres long and so would be within the maximum length for the Bakerloo line, but that doesn't mean they would fit round the curves, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 15, 2021 23:09:38 GMT
If it is costly then why change them for the new tube for London, they hardly do much miles etc on the W&C, I find it a waste of money Faster boarding and alighting and more trains per hour able to run. The line has no intermediate stations, so faster boarding is hardly going to make much difference on the W&C when the train is in the station well over a minute. I think the line is already frequent, pre covid and doesn't need any more trains. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 15, 2021 23:11:44 GMT
I think something will surely be cascaded to the Bakerloo line. Not sure whether it'll be Northern or Jub stock. Jub stock is 7 car, as is Bakerloo, so more likely to be that in my opinion, plus easy transfer available at Baker Street. But I don't think anyone knows for sure. Northern & Jubilee have fewer longer cars than traditional standard cars, which gives greater overhang on curves, a problem on the Bakerloo! Also 7-car Jubilee train is nearer 8-car traditional train, although the extra 7th cars, which were once inserted, could be removed. As mentioned above, the last budget submission again puts the Bakerloo ahead of the Jubilee in the queue for new trains. linkThat should be right, I think it was even a ridiculous idea that the Jubilee should get new trains again and the Bakerloo was dumped with older trains. After all the Jubilee is on its 3 set of train stock compared to the Bakerloo still on 70's |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 17, 2021 4:05:43 GMT
The Jubilee line has enough trains to replace the Bakerloo and partially boost the Northern line fleets if they are displaced by a new delivery. The Bakerloo is a back way of LU with no pressing passenger demand, with the last of the simpler old trains easier to maintain for an extended life. It is unclear how long the old trains can be economically retained. However, there is also a wish to delay a replacement fleet until the Lewisham extension is underway, so that a common fleet can be ordered. This would be better than one order for the current service and then, say ten years later, as many again for the extension, since they will likely be technically improved by then with compatibility problems. Would adaption of the current Bakerloo line for 6-cars of longer Jubilee trains save life-extension costs on the present old trains, and allow delay to an order for new Bakerloo trains until the Lewisham extension is certain? There may be need for planned gap fillers at some curved platforms, and a widening of the tunnels on some curves! I suspect that, subject to 96 stock being able to economically be made to fit on the Bakerloo, this is exactly what will happen. But I don’t think it’s on the radar yet. There shouldn't be a great obstacle to adapting Bakerloo tunnels for 96TS, since it is a similar size to the long gone 1983TS. When that entered service it was allowed on the Bakerloo if unable to continue south of Baker Street on its own Jubilee line. This may have happened a few times before one suffered minor damage entering London Road depot, if I recall correctly, but never allowed again. A bigger problem may be larger gaps at curved platforms since standards have tightened! |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Jul 17, 2021 5:52:45 GMT
I suspect that, subject to 96 stock being able to economically be made to fit on the Bakerloo, this is exactly what will happen. But I don’t think it’s on the radar yet. There shouldn't be a great obstacle to adapting Bakerloo tunnels for 96TS, since it is a similar size to the long gone 1983TS. When that entered service it was allowed on the Bakerloo if unable to continue south of Baker Street on its own Jubilee line. This may have happened a few times before one suffered minor damage entering London Road depot, if I recall correctly, but never allowed again. A bigger problem may be larger gaps at curved platforms since standards have tightened! Given the real problems caused by the limited space and layout at Piccadilly Circus it is likely your proposed work would have been done many years ago if it was possible. The existing trains only just fit in sidings at Elephant & Castle. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jul 17, 2021 8:57:22 GMT
The existing trains only just fit in sidings at Elephant & Castle. Run 5 car 1996ts trains, more frequently, with some even terminating at Willesden Junction bay* platform? Alas, the signalling system introduced by BR in the mid 1980's prevents this. *This is long enough for 5 car LO trains and I feel pretty sure that a 5 car Bakerloo line train formed of 1996ts would be shorter than a five car 378 / 710. The bigger issue might be restoring the 4th rail (if its not there anymore) and finding when the bay platform is not being used by LO trains which are not in passenger service. The advantage of the bay platform is that it is located between the main running lines so that terminating trains will not block through services. btw, I understand the idea that the Bakerloo should wait for Lewisham before it gets brand new trains, but still feel that it should have new trains 'now' and that if / when Lewisham comes then if need be these could be cascaded elsewhere (Piccadilly fleet enhancement - in conjunction with new signalling?) |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 17, 2021 10:00:49 GMT
There shouldn't be a great obstacle to adapting Bakerloo tunnels for 96TS, since it is a similar size to the long gone 1983TS. When that entered service it was allowed on the Bakerloo if unable to continue south of Baker Street on its own Jubilee line. This may have happened a few times before one suffered minor damage entering London Road depot, if I recall correctly, but never allowed again. A bigger problem may be larger gaps at curved platforms since standards have tightened! Given the real problems caused by the limited space and layout at Piccadilly Circus it is likely your proposed work would have been done many years ago if it was possible. The existing trains only just fit in sidings at Elephant & Castle. A 6-car 96TS would be the same length as a Northern line train, shorter than traditional length 7-car trains formerly on the Northern and currently on the Bakerloo line! |
|
