a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 30, 2008 17:51:54 GMT
1992 stock used to be reliable. Gone slightly downhill in recent months. Too much tape.  A60 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 18:10:07 GMT
Yes... it adds weight and increases the drag factor [thats resistance to movement against propulsion force, guys]  Lots of them are being pulled for motor flashovers!  |
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 30, 2008 18:44:10 GMT
Refurbish those tatty trains, now!  |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Mar 30, 2008 18:44:29 GMT
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 30, 2008 18:48:12 GMT
That report is wrong in one aspect.
92,95&,96's don't have brush motors.
A60
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 30, 2008 19:01:20 GMT
92 stock has DC motors and brushes
95, 96 stocks have ac motors and no brushes
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 30, 2008 19:03:19 GMT
Anyways,
The other stocks are reliable with brushes, take A Stock for example.
A60
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2008 19:20:45 GMT
92 stock has DC motors and brushes 95, 96 stocks have ac motors and no brushes 1996 stock has DC motors cos the technology was held from 1991 so the 1995 ts are the only stock with AC motors on the underground |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 30, 2008 19:38:47 GMT
Are the A stock more reliable than the 92ts?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,766
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 30, 2008 19:52:14 GMT
Are the A stock more reliable than the 92ts? They're infinitely more comfortable! |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Mar 30, 2008 21:43:57 GMT
Maybe if the people writing it weren't so determined to spread their message and political agenda, it might be useful. I read that blog for a year or so until it became apparent they weren't all that bothered about the facts getting in the way of a good story. And that's coming from someone who was involved in assisting an anarcho-syndicalist rail union abroad! |
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 30, 2008 22:13:20 GMT
I havent heard of an A Stock train breaking down for the last 7 or so months.
Not as frequently either. Considering their age.
A60
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 30, 2008 22:24:14 GMT
Wow! That is an amazing stat, considering they are between 46-48 years old! It would be interesting to compare the failure rates among the A/C/D/67/72/73/92/95 and 96 stocks!
Are the D stock still the best and the C stock the worst?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Mar 30, 2008 22:27:25 GMT
I do like the way that drivers have to "take safety into their own hands" by going through a packed train - the passengers who have to crowd into such trains because of the shortage of units are obviously unimportant then?
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 31, 2008 4:43:25 GMT
Note: 1996 stock have AC motors as well as 1995 stock. The technology in the traction packages is different between the two stocks, but both have ac motors and no brushes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2008 8:41:55 GMT
I think that part of the problem is that public transport rolling stock (trains and buses) is now built down to a price rather than up to a quality.
London Transport made mistakes, but it understood that it was worth paying a bit more to get quality, and that proper scheduled overhauls prevented problems. Thus the long life of the 38TS, A60 stock, RT/RF/RM buses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2008 9:28:40 GMT
I think that part of the problem is that public transport rolling stock (trains and buses) is now built down to a price rather than up to a quality. London Transport made mistakes, but it understood that it was worth paying a bit more to get quality, and that proper scheduled overhauls prevented problems. Thus the long life of the 38TS, A60 stock, RT/RF/RM buses. Indeed, LT was such a large organisation that centralised overhaul works (Aldenham, Chiswick and Acton) were a possibility and that economies could actually be made by using an overhaul works. The argument for not overhauling tube stock now is that they don't need as much maintenance but older stock used to have the overhaul but now don't, which must reduce reliability as they receive less preventative maintenance than previously. For buses, this has started to go full circle as TfL have now started to request bus operators when they renew their 5/7 year contracts to either buy new buses or refurbish their old ones, so in one sense the buses are on an overhaul cycle. In UndergrounD News each month they report overhauls being done to stock. How extensive are these overhauls? (they report the 67/72ts and the 73ts but rarely any other stocks) |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Mar 31, 2008 10:53:11 GMT
Are the D stock still the best and the C stock the worst? C Stock seems to be the most unreliable. |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Mar 31, 2008 11:32:56 GMT
Are the D stock still the best and the C stock the worst? C Stock seems to be the most unreliable. But as there are far fewer C Stocks sitting spare compared with the number that Metronet are required to offer for service, this is quite understandable! |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 31, 2008 11:58:16 GMT
Yes-if you look at the stats the C stock has the most problems-but as you say there are a number of reasons why! However, the relatively reliable A stock has many spare trains and the service can be restored more easily.
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 31, 2008 15:22:19 GMT
S Stock are supposed to be really cheap as trains go, so that seems like a euphamism for something terrible.  A60 |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 31, 2008 17:19:16 GMT
It is not clear to me what cheap means in this context?
nearly 1400 vehicles of S stock are being obtained - wouldn't you expect a quantity discount?
I have see nothing "cheap" about their construction.
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Mar 31, 2008 18:12:48 GMT
Well a friend told me they were going to be cheap.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 31, 2008 21:37:10 GMT
If they are cheap they won't be any cheaper than the Electrostars which are far from cheap (can't believe I'm defending the S stock!!).
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Apr 1, 2008 8:45:50 GMT
S stock would be ok if they changed the front end design, it looks ugly, and if LU changed the seating. They were going to have the same seating in both S7s and S8s, but the people on the Met. wanted more seats than the Circle, so they make the S7's seating layout worse!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 1, 2008 9:49:06 GMT
The front doesn't look great to be fair but I've seen worse. The seating is an issue! I don't think they made the seating worse on the S7-longitudinal seating was needed on the Circle and District trains. Can you image a C stock train with transverse seats in it? No-they'd get in the way! However, I do think a majority 2+2 option should be used for the S8. By making the current longitudinal seats tip up next to the car ends (or rather connections) the remaining seating (32 seats) could be transverse 2+2 between the three sets of doors, thus giving 40 seats per car. With wheelchair access that would give 318 seats per train. Nobody has ever explained why this choice of layout was not chosen!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2008 9:54:15 GMT
New stock will inevitably have fewer seats than the A stock because 3+2 seating couldn't be incorporated into an Underground train because of safety and evacuation rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Apr 1, 2008 9:59:37 GMT
How does 3+2 seating hinder evacuation?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2008 10:04:52 GMT
H&S and the need to be able to bring a stretcher through the train.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Apr 1, 2008 10:12:11 GMT
Can you image a C stock train with transverse seats in it? Didn't C stock have transverse seats until they were refurbished? Also, the District needs a few transverse seats, and all S7s have to be the same. |
|
