C stock in an office!

[Deleted]

www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/06/11/east-london-office-gets-its-own-private-tube-train/

Interesting...

5721 was meant to be preserved, no?

[Deleted]

Just been sent this link by a friend;
www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/06/11/east-london-office-gets-its-own-private-tube-train/
Have the LTM really been so short sighted as to sell of the last surviving fully intact C stock vehicle to a fancy city development?

[Deleted]

A very short sighted and sad move. I didn't have much faith in the LTM's attitude towards post 1938 stock, now I have none. This is a travesty.

[carltona]

A pity it is being referred to as a "tube train", but then the general public will not know any different.

[metman]

Looks fake to me! I think it is a mock up to be honest. It looms brand new not 37 years old!

[Deleted]

The first pictures are CGI, however the last one looks fairly convincing. Hopefully it is just a mockup!

[domh245]

The last picture does look unfortunately real, looking at the nearside cab pillar and the details on it. Not the sort of thing you'd put on a mockup

[spsmiler]

Of course the preserved car only demonstrated the refurbished seating format. We've already lost the original transverse seating layout. Except in photographic format!

Maybe next month I'll make my long-planned C stock memories YouTube film which will show this.

Simon

[rincew1nd]

Threads merged

I have a heard a rumour on Twitter that the car is not actually 5721, but another that has been renumbered.

[Deleted]

Confirmed as a renumbered car by London Transport Museum Friends twitter.com/LTMuseumFriends

[snoggle]

And more evidence in this Tweet that 5721 is extant at the Museum! Taken just minutes ago:

[norbitonflyer]

Why give it a fake number?

[theblackferret]

Perhaps we should ask the developers, especially as the agents don't seem to be using the renumbered unit as a selling point:


rentocstock


Wonder if they paid for having that number-sort of a cherished mark transfer?

[Chris M]

Does 5721 have any significance to the number of the building?

[Deleted]

Not too sure if anyone else noticed but the webpage now says it is a replica of 5721.

[Deleted]

If you looked at the pictures on IanVisits the number is clearly not in New Johnston

[Rich32]

Jun 13, 2015 16:55:31 GMT @felixj20000 said:

If you looked at the pictures on IanVisits the number is clearly not in New Johnston

What good eyesight! I'd never have noticed that as the photo's a bit blurry.
Nice avi by the way

[class411]

Jun 12, 2015 14:16:26 GMT dodidi said:

Not too sure if anyone else noticed but the webpage now says it is a replica of 5721.

I just looked at the web page (8:35 Sunday) and then the thread afterwards, and wondered if anyone else had read the page properly, as there were so many complaints about using the original when it clearly said it was a replica. This early on a Sunday morning it didn't occur to me that the sneaky blighters might have edited the page after causing outrage amongst underground aficionados.

[ianvisits]

Jun 14, 2015 7:40:08 GMT class411 said:

This early on a Sunday morning it didn't occur to me that the sneaky blighters might have edited the page after causing outrage amongst underground aficionados.

The sneaky blighter in question made it clear in the text that the article had been edited.

[class411]

Jun 14, 2015 10:19:29 GMT ianvisits said:

Jun 14, 2015 7:40:08 GMT class411 said:

This early on a Sunday morning it didn't occur to me that the sneaky blighters might have edited the page after causing outrage amongst underground aficionados.

The sneaky blighter in question made it clear in the text that the article had been edited.

Groan.

That was supposed to be a vaguely humorous dig at my own lack of concentration, not a suggestion that anyone else had done something underhand.

[Deleted]

I managed to grab some photo's of the Unit (well half unit this week) some of them are a bit blurry as they had to be done quick. If you look at the photo from the rear looking at the roof structure it definitley seems to be a genuine DM but obviously not the real 5721. I have been doing some digging to no avail yet of the real identity of this DM but will continue

I dont seem to be able to post image from my sons flikr so here is the link


Andy

[mb2014]

Going by the withdrawals/scrapping list if it is a genuine car and not 5721 then it can only be 5701 or 5720 which are the only ones not scrapped unless they acquired one from the scrapper and kept it very quiet

[mb2014]

Latest UNDERGROUND NEWS says it may be 5595 but this requires confirmation

[Deleted]

I can confirm that the main body of the part-motor coach is not from a scrap C Stock, but a very professionally made wooden mock-up. However, there are many 'bits and pieces' that have come from a real C Stock, the driving desk, for example, and the roof. On the other hand the miniature circuit breakers on the offside console is not C Stock, nor are the window wipers, which came from an HGV. The destination is a made up sticker. The tread plates are 'C77' to reflect the number on the mock-up. So 5595 (or anything else for that matter) it is not, other than some equipment/fittings from 'something' C Stock (although I believe the transverse seats maybe from D Stock). All in all, a superb job has been done and fooled many, including yours truly, for some time!!