|
|
Post by mcmaddog on Dec 7, 2008 14:28:06 GMT
Admittedly 92 stock aren't very well made at all, but I still maintain that in terms of saloon design they are the best of all the tube stocks currently in service. Totally agree on that, they seem far less cramped than the 95/96 stock. Add to that their impressive acceleration/deceleration and frequency of service which all go to making the Central my favourite deep level line. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 7, 2008 16:52:53 GMT
I wouldn't say service frequency is great, especially on the outer reaches of the line, I've had to wait 20 mins for a train many times!
The saloon does seem very open, which I agree is excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 7, 2008 18:19:16 GMT
The timetabled service on the Central is certainly the most frequent - only the Hainault to Woodford section has a 20 min service interval. Unless of course, the service is up the spout!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 7, 2008 18:41:46 GMT
Fair play-just had a look at the timetable- 5-8min frequency is very good on a Sunday, this was a few years ago, so things have improved a lot, except maybe, the trains!  |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 7, 2008 22:42:42 GMT
Although 5-8 minutes may be the nominal frequency, even with a good service intervals of 14-17 minutes for a westbound train at Debden are not uncommon in practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2008 23:08:01 GMT
Ive had 6mins gaps in the middle of the day at Stratford when theres a 'good service'. Tho then you get three or four trains 1min apart!
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 8, 2008 17:26:40 GMT
I think I've said this before, but the Central hasn't operated a true "Good Service" for a long time. What I mean by a good service, not LUL, is a service where there are no cancellations from the timetable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2009 15:09:16 GMT
Yes I'd agree agree with you there, trains virtually one after the other at peak times and I had to travel out to Epping from Stratford recently and a friend of mine who was with me couldn't believe how quickly we got there  [/quote]Totally agree on that, they seem far less cramped than the 95/96 stock. Add to that their impressive acceleration/deceleration and frequency of service which all go to making the Central my favourite deep level line.[/quote] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 20:09:36 GMT
Hey,
Are the Central Line trains going to get a refurb before 2012? The seats look a bit tatty
Dan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 20:14:32 GMT
Ha!!!
Been talked about... that was before the Metronet debacle. Was talk of a mid-life refresh... 2008 became 2009, which became 2010... repeat to fade.
Work has been done on the units, but mainly below solebar. Thats all the technological gubbins.
Fear not however, as voices are being made heard that 'if it can be done to the Waterloo and City stock, why not the Central, after all, it is the same stock, outwardly!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Apr 16, 2009 21:54:58 GMT
I too agree; seats in desperate need. They really spoil the car interiors and to my mind make the carriage feel really dim.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 16, 2009 22:24:16 GMT
Ha!!! Been talked about... that was before the Metronet debacle. Was talk of a mid-life refresh... 2008 became 2009, which became 2010... repeat to fade. Work has been done on the units, but mainly below solebar. Thats all the technological gubbins. Fear not however, as voices are being made heard that 'if it can be done to the Waterloo and City stock, why not the Central, after all, it is the same stock, outwardly! The trouble is that refurbishing (or "refreshing" to use that horrible new term) the 92 stock will cost £££ and that is something LUL doesn't have much of at the moment. This falls at a time the question of the long-term future of the stock remains the subject of much head-scratching. Spending money on a refresh, whilst good for the ambience scores, will not solve the fundamental problems of 1) Electronics and mechanical component obsolescence 2) Poor condition of the bodyshells 3) The high cost, or even the technical feasibility, of the stock becoming disability compliant by the 2020 cut-off date. Add in to this mix the Olympics, the constant issues with traction motors, the stock's poor availability/reliability, and this becomes a very complex issue. In my opinion, expect a cheap and minimal "refresh" at best. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 16, 2009 22:45:50 GMT
Even just new seats (with a noticeably different, brighter, moquette) and brighter lighting would go a long to improving passenger experience of the stock. I'm no expert of course but I can't see this either presenting technical headaches or costing the earth (although a designer for the moquette might). Term it a "redecoration" or "refersh of the passenger saloon" so people don't expect a vastly improved reliability.
Long term of course the line needs new trains - probably sooner than the Picadilly does.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 17, 2009 7:25:40 GMT
Perhaps the 1972 and 1992 stock replacement can be done at the same time with similar trains in 2020.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Apr 17, 2009 7:30:00 GMT
Too little stock could be added into the equation. The total number of cars built including the W&C is, from what I remember, the same as the order of 1962 stock for the central plus the number of cars of 60/standard stock originally running. Granted you can knock 12 cars off for Ongar nowadays, but that still leaves another 8 the central could do with.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmaddog on Apr 17, 2009 8:57:08 GMT
Could you not build a few extra 09 stock trains for the W&C and give the 92s to the Central or are the reliability problems more in service issues rather than lack of availability? As a passenger the interior space of the 92 is great!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 17, 2009 9:55:08 GMT
the 09s would not be suitable for the W&C as they would be out of gauge (the Vic line tunnels are larger than the W&C tunnels, and the 09 stock has been built to take advantage of the larger tunnels).
The W&C 92s are part-owned by the City of London, so their permission would need to be sought before doing anything with those trains. While I don't expect them to be against newer trains, I can't guarantee that. The best bet for releasing the W&C 92s to the Central would be to add onto the order for the 1973ts replacements, although if replacements for the main Central Line fleet are on the cards by the time the 1973ts replacement it may not thought to be worth it. Especially as the W&C fleet is in much better condition than the Central fleet, and there will not be any shortage of spares to keep them going when the Central 92s are withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Apr 17, 2009 13:36:58 GMT
the 09s would not be suitable for the W&C as they would be out of gauge (the Vic line tunnels are larger than the W&C tunnels, and the 09 stock has been built to take advantage of the larger tunnels). The W&C 92s are part-owned by the City of London, so their permission would need to be sought before doing anything with those trains. While I don't expect them to be against newer trains, I can't guarantee that. The best bet for releasing the W&C 92s to the Central would be to add onto the order for the 1973ts replacements, although if replacements for the main Central Line fleet are on the cards by the time the 1973ts replacement it may not thought to be worth it. Especially as the W&C fleet is in much better condition than the Central fleet, and there will not be any shortage of spares to keep them going when the Central 92s are withdrawn. Regardless of what the City of London Corporation "want", the 92TS should have been transferred to the Central Line upon refurb and replaced by refurbed 72TS Mk1 crewed from Elephant & Castle depot. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 17, 2009 14:17:51 GMT
Bit of speculation here. There was once a connection proposed between the W&CR and the BS≀ maybe if the connection had have taken place by now the line would be opperated by 4 car 1972 stock trains from London Road.
The 09ts is more likely to be in gauge on the W&C than the pic because the tunels are marginally bigger at 12'. Granted the curves may well be just as sharp though.
Otherwise the 09ts will be too fat, and something akin to the 1973ts too long. Personally I think it shoudl take the bakerloo's replacement stock in a decade or so (or an identical extra build later) and the aforementioned connection be built.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Apr 17, 2009 15:22:38 GMT
Of course if the W&C 92TS were transferred to the Central Line the City Corp would still be getting their money's worth, and at four stations (Liverpool St, Bank, St.Paul's and Chancery Lane [just] instead of one). But maybe they would show up the disgraceful condition of the rest of the stock - seats hard and filthy, armrests broken off or removed, trim tatty and cabs seemingly held on by sticky tape.
If the W&C is to remain as part of the Central operationally, it might as well be shown as a hatched red & white spur in the manner of the Aldwych branch, though I suppose history and tradition mitigates against that idea.
Going a bit off-topic, I've never understood how 'mystery shoppers' can, and will, mark a station down for displaying a hand-written sign in the ticket office window (however helpful), or a T/Op for starting a PA with "Your attention please" instead of "Ladies and Gentlemen" (however useful), yet the A Stock can run around with half-white fronts and the C Stock with side paint buffed or scratched off.
Were any PPP abatements ever made for all of this before Metronet collapsed and equally, was the 2-pack paint finish supposed to last up to 20 years without re-application?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 19:07:23 GMT
Regardless of what the City of London Corporation "want", the 92TS should have been transferred to the Central Line upon refurb and replaced by refurbed 72TS Mk1 crewed from Elephant & Castle depot. 72s would be of no use on the W&C the driver would struggle to get out of the train at Bank during the morning peak due to no cab doors, and with the stepping back and short turn arounds you would see major delays. Even on the 92s the driver getting off at Bank has to stand near the barriers until the platform has cleared and often as the train has departed again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 19:13:54 GMT
The other issue is the software mods... That on the W&C is, as far as I am aware, some 250 'mods' behind those on the central, if not 400 'mods'. It's not just the case of getting the crane back and trundling them along to the Central and shoving them into service...
The refurb has implications for the Corporation of London and I don't think they'd be happy with the 72ts. This was a plan actually floated about to sort out the chronic stock issues on the Central. They had to appease the Corporation of London, an so the refurb was born. Not sure if the Corpotration contributed to the refurb, but they certainly paid towards the W&C 92ts units originally.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Apr 17, 2009 19:26:30 GMT
It's occured to me that, whilst the W&C is hardly likely to be re-branded as a Central Line spur, Aldwych was a Central Line station staffing-wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Apr 18, 2009 2:54:47 GMT
Aldwych was a Central Line station staffing-wise. And the Piccadilly served Aldwych. Why this anomaly in line staffing? |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Apr 18, 2009 9:03:25 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2009 12:25:13 GMT
the 92TS should have been transferred to the Central Line upon refurb and replaced by refurbed 72TS Mk1 Wasn't that the plan at one stage? Or was it just an urban myth?  Edited to add: woops - just seen Artery Train Op's post on this very matter. That'll teach me to read the whole thread before replying!  |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 19, 2009 11:32:37 GMT
Regardless of what the City of London Corporation "want", the 92TS should have been transferred to the Central Line upon refurb and replaced by refurbed 72TS Mk1 crewed from Elephant & Castle depot. 72s would be of no use on the W&C the driver would struggle to get out of the train at Bank during the morning peak due to no cab doors, and with the stepping back and short turn arounds you would see major delays. Even on the 92s the driver getting off at Bank has to stand near the barriers until the platform has cleared and often as the train has departed again. Not a major problem - the 67 and 72 stock have external step plates allowing the driver to leave via the M door. I'd say a bigger problem with these stocks on the W&C would be the unsuitable interior layout in the motor cars. Eliminating the transverse seats would be very difficult, if feasible at all. Also the doorways are narrower than 92 stock - I always get the feeling that 67 stocks are very slow to load/unload at stations, less of an issue with the 72 stock because the Bakerloo is less crowded. Notwithstanding all this, the 92 stock on the W&C are wasted considering the positive impact these extra 2.5 trains could have on the Central. There's always the option to put a few 67 stocks on the W&C when the 09 stock enters service - fit a standard TBC and tripcock and they'd be more or less ready to run. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 19, 2009 11:37:05 GMT
the 09s would not be suitable for the W&C as they would be out of gauge (the Vic line tunnels are larger than the W&C tunnels, and the 09 stock has been built to take advantage of the larger tunnels). The W&C 92s are part-owned by the City of London, so their permission would need to be sought before doing anything with those trains. While I don't expect them to be against newer trains, I can't guarantee that. The best bet for releasing the W&C 92s to the Central would be to add onto the order for the 1973ts replacements, although if replacements for the main Central Line fleet are on the cards by the time the 1973ts replacement it may not thought to be worth it. Especially as the W&C fleet is in much better condition than the Central fleet, and there will not be any shortage of spares to keep them going when the Central 92s are withdrawn. Unlikely to work, as Piccadilly Line replacement trains will be built with the same car length as 73 stock. 4 cars will be too long for the platforms on the W&C, 3 cars will be a reduction in capacity. There's also the issue that they may not fit round the curves on the W&C. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2009 22:15:36 GMT
72s would be of no use on the W&C the driver would struggle to get out of the train at Bank during the morning peak due to no cab doors, and with the stepping back and short turn arounds you would see major delays. Even on the 92s the driver getting off at Bank has to stand near the barriers until the platform has cleared and often as the train has departed again. Not a major problem - the 67 and 72 stock have external step plates allowing the driver to leave via the M door. . I would imagine the H&S reps would be very unpleased of drivers climbing out the rear cab with the possibility of a driver opening up at the other end and releasing the brakes! |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 20, 2009 1:02:33 GMT
I'm not so sure about the platforms being the problem for a four car 73esque train. On average the 1940tube stock was 48' long per car and did 5 car trains. That would be 240'. A 73 car is...58?' long. 4 times that would be 232' long. However, depot roads have been changed for H&S reasons since. If one train were stabled at Bank, and two at waterloo platforms, enough space would be available to accomodate the rest safely in the depot. Only assuming they fit round the bends, mind |
|
