Comparisons

Firstly (and lastly), let us remember neither Metronet nor Tubelines have built any of the existing stock; They merely provided specifications and/or modifcations on the present builds, but they didn't make any of them.

Bah - and all this poppycock about Metronet 'running' the railway... sure; they might 'run' the railway in the sense that they maintain a large proportion of it, but do bear in mind that a large number of Metronet employees have (unwillingly) transferred from London Underground from various infracos, so in a sense, London Underground are still running the railway - just half the workforce have got a hi-vis with a different logo on.

[/rant]

How about a complimentary glass of Champaigne and newspaper to boot?

Yes I agree the 92ts is looking rather ropey now. The seats, well, less said the better... Sonia forever bleating on... well, we can turn that off, just ask us nicely [!]

Well the latter is actually available on the tube on weekday mornings. Shame it's just a comic produced by the Daily Mail group.

IIRC someone mentioned the 92s did originally have armrests (in fact the W&C variants still do) but on the Central our wonderful chav friends began to pull them apart so they were all removed. Sad, really.

Talking of armrests, why were the 67 non-refurb armrests (ones that allowed for two people to share the armrest) scrapped in favour of traditional armrests on refurb and on newer stocks?

Oh, and I agree with the OP, the 95s are the best stock of the 90s; shame about the track they run on though!

Thankfully that isn't the case in signals at the moment - though I am preparing to audit the cr*p out of one bunch of cowboys that think they can be the first to play around with signalling without any experience.

i transfered from LUL over to metronet but i dont wear a metronet hi-vi mine still bears the underground logo on it and says district line technical officer on the back of it

Unfortunately, it is a case of someone somewhere deciding what is best for us. This is often based on questionable research that surprisingly supports the exact design that requires least expenditure and lowest maintenance.

I hate noise pollution. I can actually remember those wonderful days when it was possible to enter a tube station without having someone screaming at you through loudspeakers from the moment you approached the booking hall, to the time you stepped back out on the street at the end of the journey. In those days, the only staff voice that you might hear (unless you asked for assistance) would be a guard advising 'Mind the gap' at relevant stations.
Maybe we could learn from NR and introduce 'quiet carriages' - the next to leading car at each end would be an ideal position (the place where the old 'Non-Smoking' cars used to be). I suspect that if such cars were introduced, they would be packed to bursting point at all hours of the day.
The problem with this idea is that some plonker would claim that it infringed the equal rights of people who wanted information. RUBBISH! With the new ultra-large easy read lettering that we have to install, I am sure that everyone can see exactly where the next stop is. And, without any intent to insult the physically challenged, I would respectfully observe that if a casual visually-impaired traveller cannot read these signs, they stand very little chance of finding the train in the first place*.

* We have previously discussed how regular passengers with little or no-sight know far better where they are than fully sighted travellers.

The Washington DC Metro may be underfunded, but it doesn't show it much.

Their refurbished rolling stock is spectacular, being bright and airy, even coming with real carpets (thicker than those found in my old student rooms), with everything being completely spotless. The seats are quite thickly padded, and to top it all they regularly exceed 75 mph in passenger service.

I've got a few pictures which I'll attempt to upload to my blog at some point. I would have taken far more, but got shouted at by some staff, who shockingly claimed to not be aware of the existance of their Use Regulations document, never mind its content. I'll be sending them a complaint as they actually have an extremely clear policy which explicitly allows personal, hand held photography (interestingly forgetting to forbid the use of flashes).

Naturally much of this is the result of it being less than 30 years old, but would anything other than cost prevent any future LU lines from having such high speeds?

memory serves me right its 25 times but i have had this since 1997 and it still is going strong only been through the wash twice i make sure i dont do enough work to get meself messy ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Metronet track and civils maintenance is very much dominated by ex-LU personnel and will be for the forseeable future. From what I understand Tubelines subcontract out more of their track maintance e.g. Amec on the Jubilee and Alsthom for the Northern.

Even in LU days Civils by its nature has always been heavily dependent on contractors. Save for its engineers and inspectors and hasn't really had its own direct labour force.

I joined what was then the Infracos during shadow running when LU engineering was split up into SSL, BCV and JNP. We were told what was coming and some left but most of us stayed. Mainly because our jobs no longer existed with LU. Historically LU has employed a lot of agency staff and these were the first ones to go during PPP.

You see, this is where you lose me. Quite possibly everything you said made pefect sense (or maybe not?) but I can only dwell on the 'C' Stock comment. When is this blasphemy going to end? Have you people no hearts? ;D


That is a theory, not one I subscribe to, but a theory none the less. Are our modern rolling stock built like an A60? Well no, of course not. We no longer use wood, brass, or supply umbrella hooks. That said, we no longer listen to the wireless, play phonographs, or send telegrams. The world has moved on and finally (Yes! At last!!) the railway has too.
We acknowledge where we have come from and are making every attempt to ensure that the 'S' stock is an evolution, but this is the 21st century and LU's vision is to be world class. We have taken both Metronet and Bombardier to the LTM at Acton and they now understand what we mean when we cry heritage at them.
These trains are made from different materials and use different building techniques. They require different operating procedures and have different technology. We are fortunate that most of this technology is already in use elsewhere, so we can look at it and assess the risks invloved with it's introduction.
My personal aim is to be able to visit London after my retirement (I'm 35 now) and ride on an 'S' stock with my grandchildren. I can tell them stories of when I worked on the system and they can get excited about the new stock that is coming to replace the 'old' trains. Will they last 40 or even 50 years? These trains must last their projected life span, it is essential for LU today and post PPP too.

Whilst being subjected to endless stories about the "real" trains we used have, like C69s. ;D

People continually go on about the new trains not being as good as the old, not lasting as long etc etc.

The same was said about the A60s, the 59s and the 73s.

'Real Trains'

I remember reading in an American railfan Magazine a discussion about Railfans and the "Good Old Days".
It was suggested that one's Good Old Days were formed in our late teens and early twenties and that though we accepted later improvements we never really let go of those early immpressions.
It certainly worked in my case and, hastened by the rush to leave new cars unpainted, left me with fond memories of the 1938 Stock.
Do any other 'getting - on, posters notice this ?

Well, I have never been a lover of the C Stock but the design wasn't done quite as you suggest. It was basically a compromise. It was expected that the whole system would go ATO within a few years and that the C Stock would be the first to be converted. So, it was designed for manual driving with ATO conversion in mind. This meant that the cab was a mess, e.g. the cab light switch was on the offside console. The draughts were terrible because it was badly put together. The doors had pneumatically operated draught excluders but these kept on failing - sometimes becuase drivers stuck a pin in them. The desk was OK in the tunnel but unreadable in the open because of reflections.

The suspension was the first attempt at load-weighing and used air bags called Metacones. This meant that car braking was individually controlled according to weight. However, they still had retarders for each braking position so the two systems fought each other for control. The units were very susceptable to volt-amp relay problems, which meant motors kept dropping out after going over a gap.

The rheo brake didn't work every time it should and the e.p. took its time on the feed up so you could easily overrun the platform. Baker St WB was the worst, with a fast run in and you could always tell when a new C Stock was arriving because the driver dropped the button. The braking was the worst feature.

You couldn't top up compressor oil without a special funnel with a 3ft long pipe added to it. The pinions on the motors were so small they wore out very quickly and I think they were all replaced in the mid-1980s.

In the end, the bogie frames and the suspension had to be replaced during refurbishment.

Ongoing reliability is still somewhere near the bottom of the league. What could you expect with 16 sets of door engines, valves, relays and interlocks on each car?

Need I go on? Perhaps their one redeeming feature is they can move crowds when necessary.