The first 09ts number

[undergroundernie]

The 09ts has been given a recent modification it now features LUL roundels and has been numbered 11004.

[100andthirty]

I think you'll find that's the secned one that's in the process of being delivered

[undergroundernie]

I was unsure whether it was the 09 that is currently at north park or if the second had been delivered yet, as a collegue forwarded me the images.

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2008 16:07:04 GMT 100andthirty said:

I think you'll find that's the secned one that's in the process of being delivered

Secned???

[ratfink]

11004 is just the car number (A car for Train 2)

other train 2 a car is 11003

(A cars for train 1 are 11001 and 11002)

[100andthirty]

Jul 13, 2008 20:40:11 GMT @sydneynick said:

Jul 13, 2008 16:07:04 GMT 100andthirty said:

I think you'll find that's the secned one that's in the process of being delivered

Secned???

"second" in gibberish!

[21146]

Is there a good reason why the Victoria Line needs two prototype trains? I know the 35TS begat the successful 38TS and the 86TS begat the, ehem, less-than-successful 92TS, but two pre-production trains seems excessive. (I could understand the S Stock project doing this if they wanted to use different seating layouts and train lengths!) In general modern LU rolling stock has not appeared first in trial form. I'm assuming both 09TS 'shells' will eventually be rebuilt as standard trains or will they be junked as per the 86TS? (Or confined to the Mill Hill East shuttle? - Joke!) Is there much difference betweens 09TS trains 1 and 2?

[Colin]

This is my understanding from what I've generally picked up on the project - if anyone knows better, feel free to make me look as though I'm talking rubbish! (now how often do you see an offer like that? ;D ;D)....

Jul 19, 2008 15:40:32 GMT @21146 said:

Is there a good reason why the Victoria Line needs two prototype trains?

Yes - train 1 is half full with testing equipment......train 2 is, AFAIK, more like a normal train, though modified for testing purposes.

Jul 19, 2008 15:40:32 GMT @21146 said:

In general modern LU rolling stock has not appeared first in trial form.

And look at the problems that have come with the 90's stocks; trip cocks failing to latch when operated, stress fractures and parts falling off, etc. Admittedly the 96ts on the Jubilee seems to have fared better than the 92ts/95ts on the Central/Northern lines.

Surely though, it makes basic common sense to thoroughly test the product first before attempting to run a full service. LU would have a lot of egg on their faces if they introduced another new stock and had all the problems of the Central & Northern lines.....again.

It's about time LU were noted for getting it right first time round in the publics eyes - and I hope all the testing pays off.

There is also the point that testing is now a mandatory thing when introducing new stocks - I dunno if it applied to the 90's stocks......it certainly wouldn't have applied to anything prior to 1990 - so it's not just being done for the sake of it, but rather because it must be done.

Jul 19, 2008 15:40:32 GMT @21146 said:

I'm assuming both 09TS 'shells' will eventually be rebuilt as standard trains or will they be junked as per the 86TS?

Re-built.

Jul 19, 2008 15:40:32 GMT @21146 said:

Is there much difference betweens 09TS trains 1 and 2?

See above.

[Oracle]

You have to think more outside the envelope...certainly having prototypes was the norm in the aviation industry, though there have been notable exceptions. As regards the Undergound there have been numerous instances of trials/pre-production/prototype vehicles: 1935 Stock as mentioned, car 10306 the 1948ish -converted 'sunshine car', the two? cars that preceded the A60 Stock, the three 1956 Stock trains, the 1960 Stock, the two 1973 units (ETT), the 1986 Stock...However, in the case of the 1935 Stock, 1956 Stock and two ETT 1973 Stock units, these were converted or were able to run in service so being non-production does not mean that they do not have a future.

The same also applied now I recall with the pioneer Tyne & Wear Metrocars. It is surely correct to get new designs out in the field so that series production versions can benefit from any feedback? I would also add the PEP SR trains that begat the 507/8, 313, etc., the Class 42 HST cars...

[21146]

Still not consistent though as there have been no new-build prototype surface stock since the 1950s (how come they get it right first?)...though of course the A, C and D Stocks all had experimental refurbished units or cars in recent years.

[Oracle]

You can't really argue that the R59 Stock was in any way a precursor, agreed, and so you have to fall back on the 1962/3 ATO conversion I suppose and that's it! I cannot recall whether there was anything built in advance of the C69 Stock.

[mrfs42]

Jul 19, 2008 20:55:08 GMT Oracle said:

You can't really argue that the R59 Stock was in any way a precursor, agreed, and so you have to fall back on the 1962/3 ATO conversion I suppose and that's it! I cannot recall whether there was anything built in advance of the C69 Stock.

The ATO conversion was neither a prototype or a precursor[1]; much experimentation was undertaken prior to the C stock build, but nothing was built that ran in passenger service.

[1] well, it could be seen a a precursor in the classical sense; and then only of the chain that ended up with F A C T.

[ruislip]

Jul 14, 2008 14:03:27 GMT @ratfink said:

11004 is just the car number (A car for Train 2)

other train 2 a car is 11003

(A cars for train 1 are 11001 and 11002)

Weren't those also numbers for 1938 stock?

[Ben]

Prototype for the C stock? That'd be the 'hustle' train

[astock5000]

Jul 20, 2008 3:27:33 GMT ruislip said:

Jul 14, 2008 14:03:27 GMT @ratfink said:

11004 is just the car number (A car for Train 2)

other train 2 a car is 11003

(A cars for train 1 are 11001 and 11002)

Weren't those also numbers for 1938 stock?

They were numbers for 1935 prototype stock. 1938 DM numbers started at 10012 and 11012.