|
Post by jimbo on Oct 9, 2019 22:23:41 GMT
C stock car diagrams showed the Circle, Hammersmith, & Wimbledon branch. R stock once showed the entire District line together with the Circle line that they once worked on Sundays.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,395
|
Post by metman on Oct 10, 2019 16:30:16 GMT
I do agree that the combined District, Circle, H&C line diagram should be tried in S7 trains. Looking at those other examples, LUL has often considered the lit line diagram style which is quite complex behind the visible rows of LEDs. Today you'd do that on a display screen like Crossrail trains etc. That older style was seen as tricky by LUL because it would for ever need stickers on it as interchanges got changes etc. Even our present line diagrams get stickered between renewals. And of course major mod to the unit if there was ever a new station... Like Wood Lane a few years before S stock, but admittedly very rare. That Montreal screen doesn't seem to me to provide significantly better journey information than S stock CIS. LUL's requirements at the time were quite clear that journey information must not be on the same screens as advertising or other information such as the weather forecast. Quite agree. It would also be very costly to replace/repair when it inevitably gets vandalised.
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Oct 10, 2019 19:07:34 GMT
I do agree that the combined District, Circle, H&C line diagram should be tried in S7 trains. Looking at those other examples, LUL has often considered the lit line diagram style which is quite complex behind the visible rows of LEDs. Today you'd do that on a display screen like Crossrail trains etc. That older style was seen as tricky by LUL because it would for ever need stickers on it as interchanges got changes etc. Even our present line diagrams get stickered between renewals. And of course major mod to the unit if there was ever a new station... Like Wood Lane a few years before S stock, but admittedly very rare. That Montreal screen doesn't seem to me to provide significantly better journey information than S stock CIS. LUL's requirements at the time were quite clear that journey information must not be on the same screens as advertising or other information such as the weather forecast. Here’s some visuals on what that would look like. Looking at the scale, I guess it would be a compromise between the size of the lines shown and encroaching in on advertising space or the horizontal space between maps. Full size CLD's are hereDated Nov 2008: Dated May 2010:
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 11, 2019 6:25:53 GMT
Looking at the scale, I guess it would be a compromise between the size of the lines shown and encroaching in on advertising space or the horizontal space between maps. They don't need to be any longer than the existing car diagrams, which can already accommodate the extreme ends of the proposed combined diagrams - Ealing Broadway and Upminster
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Oct 11, 2019 7:49:22 GMT
Looking at the scale, I guess it would be a compromise between the size of the lines shown and encroaching in on advertising space or the horizontal space between maps. They don't need to be any longer than the existing car diagrams, which can already accommodate the extreme ends of the proposed combined diagrams - Ealing Broadway and Upminster I get what you're saying about lengths. But surely having three lines in that space would shrink their size when looked at from the same position?
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 13, 2019 0:59:23 GMT
C stock car diagrams showed the Circle, Hammersmith, & Wimbledon branch. R stock once showed the entire District line together with the Circle line that they once worked on Sundays. Are you sure that the R stock had this? My memories and photos are that it was either the CP or the CO (or both of these) which had this style of map and were used on the Circle on Sundays. COP trailer 014070 - note the light bulbs, I have a better photo that shows the map but it seems to not be on Flickr (yet) Also note that the map includes the East London line and the decorative half-moon glass on some of the seat backs!! Note the fluorescent tubes - confirming that this was inside an R stock train btw, what I do not have is a map from inside a CO train showing the Hammersmith & City line and the Circle line - I remembering seeing this (when on my way to / from school) but when I went to film it I discovered that the C stock had displaced all these trains.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 13, 2019 2:31:29 GMT
R stock once showed the entire District line together with the Circle line that they once worked on Sundays. Are you sure that the R stock had this? Note the fluorescent tubes - confirming that this was inside an R stock train Your photo definitely confirms that R Stock maps included the full Circle Line
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 13, 2019 4:26:15 GMT
The Circle was worked by 6-car trains, so when the District went to 7-car trains, the R stock no longer fitted. It was formerly 6 or 8 car. COP could still make 6.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,395
|
Post by metman on Oct 13, 2019 12:35:54 GMT
The R stock was known to operate on the Circle Line in 5 car formations post 1971 but very rarely.
We drifting somewhat here so let’s get back to the S stock please.
|
|
|
Post by movingmillion on Oct 19, 2019 12:57:52 GMT
I have a fervent disliking of the S Stock, but I know that the trains are much better than the A Stock in pretty much every way. I only dislike the trains due to nostalgia for the A Stock that I grew up riding on; which isn't a good reason at all. The only thing I think the A Stock might trump the S Stock in is how long it will be in service, and that's only because to my knowledge the A Stock should have been replaced some years before it actually was.
EDIT: Personally I enjoyed the shakiness of the train, but again that is something that is not exactly desired in a train ride.
|
|
|
Post by tjw on Oct 19, 2019 18:10:30 GMT
The S-stock seats are awful, and are the most uncomfortable seats I have encountered (this includes stock that has entered service from 1880 onwards). The ride is o.k. not the bounce of the A stock but I never found that unpleasant. The bogies do not appear to hunt but that has been managed before in EMU stock. The S stock does seem to spend a lot of time crawling along, although I did get a nice high speed run the other week on a Fast Amersham, seems little different than the A-stock apart from the seat!
The only good thing about the S-stock is I suspect they will not be with us for as long as some of the older stock. Anyway I look forward to see them as well as the Thamestink stock heading up to Booths in a few years time.
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Oct 19, 2019 18:31:36 GMT
tjw , It's nigh impossible to compare the EMU's/Tube Stock of yesteryear to what we have now. So much has changed in terms of technology, tastes and needs. The rolling stock of the last few years operating across the UK spans a plethora of eras. The S-stock is designed to cater for record numbers of passengers being carried on the ancestral home of rapid transit, a home that predates the end of the American Civil War. Comparing the S-stock against the A60/A62's is like comparing a bi-plane to a 747, they carry out the same function, but the context of how they came to be could not be further apart.
|
|
|
Post by tjw on Oct 19, 2019 20:25:19 GMT
tjw , It's nigh impossible to compare the EMU's/Tube Stock of yesteryear to what we have now. (...) I hope you realise that the same was said about the Met Rigid 8's c.1890-1898, and their improvement over the 4 wheel stock. The Engineer had quite a spread on the new Ashbury carriages www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/bash/engineer.html Similar praise can be found about almost any type of carriage stock. As for the supposed novelties, bench seating, open saloons, gangway connections, air-conditioning etc. are very old developments. Comparing the S-stock against the A60/A62's is like comparing a bi-plane to a 747, they carry out the same function, but the context of how they came to be could not be further apart. Carriage stock has one major job, to carry Passengers from A to B, in safety and hopefully in comfort, to be affordable to build, and easy to maintain. The seating arrangement and the doors are a compromise between capacity and comfort (or how many passengers you wish to have standing, this was a major talking point in the 1930's), for the doors how quickly you wish the train to unload / load. The fundamental design principles of carriages have been constant for well over 100 years. I am no fan of the A60/A62 or even the BR Mk 1, but they did their job and lasted far longer than the design life (nominally 30 years for Railway carriages) It is still too early to definitively judge the S-stock, but suspect they will not be missed and preservation attempts will be fruitless.
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Oct 20, 2019 17:12:25 GMT
As for the supposed novelties, bench seating, open saloons, gangway connections, air-conditioning etc. are very old developments. Your point being? I don't dispute how long lived some of these features are. I just don't see the value of pitting the 00's with post war LT designs. Comfort is subjective, affordability is relative to the economic climate and ease of maintenance is sometimes at the mercy the sporadic nature of how technology avails itself. The principles behind a good carriage may never change, but if you really want to compare the S-stock with something parable, take a look at Metro stock that is of a similar era on a network with similar ridership around the world and draw your verdict. Of the eight comparable ones I can think of, they don't do too bad. Trains especially in this country don't last long purley because they were built to last, but because there was no choice but to patch and mend. We now have the luxury of replacing trains around that 30 year mark much more readily for better or for worse . I know the A stock and Mk1's have been mythologised among enthusiasts for soldiering on and on, but by the end, they were both dingy creaking wrecks outmoded for the needs of the current network.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 20, 2019 17:24:06 GMT
The design intent for S stock was a life with appropriate maintenance of well over 40 years. As a marker, Concessions to Standards we dated out to 2055, implying 45 years. The impressive 48-50 years of many A stocks is to be surpassed easily by the generally unloved 1972Mk2 Tube Stock on the Bakerloo of course. Mostly introduced in 1974, they are already 45 and no end in sight for another 10 years give or take a bit.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 20, 2019 18:20:04 GMT
Patch and mend is more practical for older stock, because of simpler construction and, in particular, pre-solid-state era electrical equipment. (remember also that 1972 Mark 2 stock, although "only" a little over 40 years old, is basically 1967 stock without the fancy ATO equipment. Maintaining a small fleet is also easier if they were originally part of a much larger fleet which could be plundered for spares.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 20, 2019 19:27:32 GMT
Patch and mend is more practical for older stock, because of simpler construction and, in particular, pre-solid-state era electrical equipment. (remember also that 1972 Mark 2 stock, although "only" a little over 40 years old, is basically 1967 stock without the fancy ATO equipment. Maintaining a small fleet is also easier if they were originally part of a much larger fleet which could be plundered for spares. And the Bakerloo line timetable doesn't require their trains to travel far, trundling up and down. The A stock also wasn't required to travel far for most of its life. For the first half of its life trains were split most of the day with half put away except for peaks. Then timetable cuts meant there was a very large holding of spare trains. That doesn't compare with modern fleets which are worked very hard all day, including weekends, with very little reserved for maintenance spares.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 23, 2019 23:23:28 GMT
Patch and mend is more practical for older stock, because of simpler construction and, in particular, pre-solid-state era electrical equipment. (remember also that 1972 Mark 2 stock, although "only" a little over 40 years old, is basically 1967 stock without the fancy ATO equipment. Maintaining a small fleet is also easier if they were originally part of a much larger fleet which could be plundered for spares. And the Bakerloo line timetable doesn't require their trains to travel far, trundling up and down. The A stock also wasn't required to travel far for most of its life. For the first half of its life trains were split most of the day with half put away except for peaks. Then timetable cuts meant there was a very large holding of spare trains. That doesn't compare with modern fleets which are worked very hard all day, including weekends, with very little reserved for maintenance spares. When I looked at kms operated per year in October 2007 the 1967 stock ran an average 113,000km compared to the 1972 stock 83,000, or 36% more. So distance travelled in 40 year life of Victoria line trains will take Bakerloo trains 54 years to reach. The Picc 1973 trains travelled even further, 125,000 per annum, and have to last for 50 year life, which will take Bakerloo 75 years to reach same distance! When I looked again in 2017 both lines were scheduled to travel further but the Bakerloo was catching up on the Piccadilly, from 50% less to 33% less, requiring them to last 66 years to match the travel distance of the 1973 tube stock. www.lurs.org.uk/02%20nov%2017%20LU%20TRAIN%20RELIABILITY.pdf
|
|
|
Post by movingmillion on Nov 1, 2019 0:28:16 GMT
I was under the impression that the 72 stock was the most unreliable of the stock to be replaced by NTFL. How come they are replacing the 73's first?
|
|