The 'D' stock refurbishment.

[q8]

I realise this is probably dealt with elsewhere but I can't find the thread.

I cannot understand why during the current refurb programme they don't move the 4 centre transverse seats in the car to the car ends? Transverse seats in the car middle constitute quite an obstruction to free movement really. The old 'F' stock, while shorter, had the ideal seating arrangements to my mind.

After all when they refurbed the 'C' stock they turned all the seats around without loss of capacity. Having transveres seats at the car ends will also make a bigger end-car circulating area and make up for the 'bunching' around the single leaf doors.

[Deleted]

Some of them have equipment under them, such as the cocks for isolating half a unit for main line air in the trailers. I guess that would be expensive to move.

[Deleted]

they did it with the C stock and the 73 tube stock so why not the D stock?

[Deleted]

Because this is a refurb on the cheap!

[Deleted]

adw said:

Because this is a refurb on the cheap!

You say that, but its catually quite a good refurb, and if you compare it to what has been done to all other refurb programmes, the D stock, is quite high up, as is the 73ts.

[Deleted]

metapprentice said:

adw said:

Because this is a refurb on the cheap!

You say that, but its catually quite a good refurb, and if you compare it to what has been done to all other refurb programmes, the D stock, is quite high up, as is the 73ts.

Yes I agree, I think they look good and I like driving them, on the odd occasion when I get one.

[Deleted]

jim said:

Yes I agree, I think they look good and I like driving them, on the odd occasion when I get one.

Train 62 was a refurb yesterday

[/OT]

[solidbond]

metapprentice said:

adw said:

Because this is a refurb on the cheap!

You say that, but its catually quite a good refurb, and if you compare it to what has been done to all other refurb programmes, the D stock, is quite high up, as is the 73ts.

Ahh - but if you consider that the refurb of C stock cost £1million per train, and that was 12-14 years ago. The cost of refurbishing the D stock is ALSO £1million per train, given the effect of inflation, that is quite a considerable reduction in the REAL cost. (I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say what the £1million in 1991 would be now ;D ;D)

[Deleted]

solidbond said:

Ahh - but if you consider that the refurb of C stock cost £1million per train, and that was 12-14 years ago. The cost of refurbishing the D stock is ALSO £1million per train, given the effect of inflation, that is quite a considerable reduction in the REAL cost. (I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say what the £1million in 1991 would be now ;D ;D)

True, but what they have done is aesthetically pleasing (thats a big word ) for the punter customer. I like it anyway.

[Deleted]

That's the whole point - the customer likes it but it doesn't involve any real expense like moving under-seat equipment.

[Deleted]

Would that have even been necessary? So far as I know the MTBF of the D stock has always been rather high (other than the bogies) and the refurbishment has addressed the faults that come with age - I've always read that the D stock is the most reliable Underground rolling stock ever used.

[Deleted]

can a refurb d stock couple with a non refurb d stock and work in passenger service or is the wiring different on the couplers?

[citysig]

q8 said:

After all when they refurbed the 'C' stock they turned all the seats around without loss of capacity.

Technically, capacity was lost.

Each seat as it was then was x inches wide (based on two people using each seat.)
The original test refurb had the seating placed as it is now, but with each "bay" having just 3 seating positions on each side - using the old measurement.

It was decided that to retain the perceived capacity, the seats would be narrowed slightly to provide space for 4 positions.

Only those with slightly larger frames (such as myself) would have noticed any difference.

Besides as is mostly known, the C-stock was refurbed mainly to provide additional standing room, as fewer people undertake long-distance journies. It's all about "cramming them in" with the C-stock.

[solidbond]

aetearlscourt said:

can a refurb d stock couple with a non refurb d stock and work in passenger service or is the wiring different on the couplers?

No - the 2 are not allowed to couple up. Even in an emergency pressphans must be used when coupling a refurb to a non-refurb.

[solidbond]

citysig said:

q8 said:

After all when they refurbed the 'C' stock they turned all the seats around without loss of capacity.

Technically, capacity was lost.

Each seat as it was then was x inches wide (based on two people using each seat.)
The original test refurb had the seating placed as it is now, but with each "bay" having just 3 seating positions on each side - using the old measurement.

It was decided that to retain the perceived capacity, the seats would be narrowed slightly to provide space for 4 positions.

Only those with slightly larger frames (such as myself) would have noticed any difference.

Besides as is mostly known, the C-stock was refurbed mainly to provide additional standing room, as fewer people undertake long-distance journies. It's all about "cramming them in" with the C-stock.

It can be seen how much difference there is in the seat size by looking at the seats at the ends of the C stock. The original size of seat, for 2 people, fitted the space perfectly, and that was the same size as all the other seats on the train. After refurb, they still had the seats at the ends the new, smaller, size, which left a gap. This gap has recently been filled with a cushion, but the size of the cushion shows how much smaller the seats are after refurb.

[citysig]

solidbond said:

This gap has recently been filled with a cushion, but the size of the cushion shows how much smaller the seats are after refurb.

That cushion is intended to give the impression of additional seating, thus achieving additional capacity at no more cost than a few cushions. Who needs an extra car? ;D

[Deleted]

Justine Greening will be pleased!

[Deleted]

adw said:

That's the whole point - the customer likes it but it doesn't involve any real expense like moving under-seat equipment.

Whats this need for moving underseat equipment? If it aint broke', dont fix it.

[Colin]

adw said:

Justine Greening will be pleased!

I forgot all about her!!

Nice to see an elected MP doing what they promised to do in their 'victory speach' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Deleted]

theonekea said:

Would that have even been necessary? So far as I know the MTBF of the D stock has always been rather high (other than the bogies) and the refurbishment has addressed the faults that come with age - I've always read that the D stock is the most reliable Underground rolling stock ever used.

Interesting as I thought I had read somewhere that A stock in its heyday put anything current to shame for reliabilty.

After reading what peole such as Tubeprune have said about the lack of reliabilty of 83TS, since they shared a large amount of design and equipment in common it's interesting that the D stock is so reliable. Is it that the major gremlins (such as the bogies) have been ironed out of the D stock units? Or are 83TS and D not really that similar?

[q8]

Now I am confuddled. First we get someone saying the 83's (I REFUSE to add 'ts' to any stock) are reliable and were popular with crews. Now we get someone saying that the Prune quoting they were not. I suspect the only unpopular thing about them was the single leaf doors. They are/are not liked by the public. As the 83's were more or less junior 'D's I suspect ther mechanical reliabilty was on a par too.

[citysig]

As someone who has controlled the Jub with both stocks, from a service point of view the 83TS had the edge on reliability. Less to go wrong for a start, as they didn't have all the extra computerised bits and pieces.

I do know that many drivers hated them, and during rush-hour they weren't great at clearing platforms either.

As for the "TS" why are you so against it. They are after all "Toy Stock." It's only as bad as adding the A,D and C to the front of the others (that's Admirable, Dire and C*** ;D )

[q8]

(that's Admirable, Dire and C*** )

Oh Nice !!! Warra you gonna label the new 'S' stock as then? ;D

[Deleted]

Nice one Q8, S*** stock, could well catch on, sad but true!! ;D ;D ;D

[Deleted]

Rekindled memories of reading about Standard TUBE Stock.

IIRC, they were made by 5 different manufacturers, and if you include the prototypes, there were SEVEN different designs, outwardly simlilar, but some had differing designs of 'air scoops' some had bogie shrouding, some had ventilators, some had fixed windows where others opened. The list goes on. FWIW, they were anything BUT standard.

But, I do like them, or at least thier looks. My photo archive, bequeathed to me by my Grandfather, contains many MANY superb photographs, including BRAND NEW R Stock at Chiswick Park, CO & CP at Ealing Bdy, F Stock [ones with oval Motormans window] and of course, Q8's favourite stock. . I'm looking to get a scanner and upload some of these interesting pictures.

[q8]

I'm looking to get a scanner and upload some of these interesting pictures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

You do that lad and you'll be my hero !!