On the central line this morning I saw a 6 car 92 stock train with 2 cars
glued on the end to make up the 8. Why the unusual configuration - an
amalgamation of spare cars perhaps?

B2003

In article , d ()
wrote:

On the central line this morning I saw a 6 car 92 stock train with 2
cars glued on the end to make up the 8. Why the unusual configuration -
an amalgamation of spare cars perhaps?

Sounds normal to me.

The 92TS comes in two car units, with a cab at one end or no cab, just a
shunting control cabinet. Are you saying you saw a cab in the middle of
the train? That would be quite within the standard permutations.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 17 Mar, 17:44, wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

On the central line this morning I saw a 6 car 92 stock train with 2
cars glued on the end to make up the 8. Why the unusual configuration -
an amalgamation of spare cars perhaps?

Sounds normal to me.

The 92TS comes in two car units, with a cab at one end or no cab, just a
shunting control cabinet. Are you saying you saw a cab in the middle of
the train? That would be quite within the standard permutations.


Yes, four two-car units in every train, all fully reversible and able
to fit anywhere in the train.

A rough count suggests that there are 175 units with a cab and 165
without a cab, so there are bound to be some with cabs in middle
positions.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
On 17 Mar, 17:44, wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

On the central line this morning I saw a 6 car 92 stock train with 2
cars glued on the end to make up the 8. Why the unusual configuration -
an amalgamation of spare cars perhaps?

Sounds normal to me.

The 92TS comes in two car units, with a cab at one end or no cab, just a
shunting control cabinet. Are you saying you saw a cab in the middle of
the train? That would be quite within the standard permutations.


Yes, four two-car units in every train, all fully reversible and able
to fit anywhere in the train.

A rough count suggests that there are 175 units with a cab and 165
without a cab, so there are bound to be some with cabs in middle
positions.

The 3rd cab wasn't in the middle, it was 2 cars from the end. Hence the
subject line. I'd not seen that configuration before - they're usually in
the middle.

Why are there extra cabs anyway? The 92 stock was always going to be 8 cars
everywhere AFAIK. Are they just spares in case of failure?

B2003

wrote in message

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
On 17 Mar, 17:44, wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

On the central line this morning I saw a 6 car 92 stock train with
2 cars glued on the end to make up the 8. Why the unusual
configuration - an amalgamation of spare cars perhaps?

Sounds normal to me.

The 92TS comes in two car units, with a cab at one end or no cab,
just a shunting control cabinet. Are you saying you saw a cab in
the middle of the train? That would be quite within the standard
permutations.


Yes, four two-car units in every train, all fully reversible and able
to fit anywhere in the train.

A rough count suggests that there are 175 units with a cab and 165
without a cab, so there are bound to be some with cabs in middle
positions.

The 3rd cab wasn't in the middle, it was 2 cars from the end. Hence
the subject line. I'd not seen that configuration before - they're
usually in the middle.

Why are there extra cabs anyway? The 92 stock was always going to be
8 cars everywhere AFAIK. Are they just spares in case of failure?

Perhaps there was originally a plan to be able to run them to Ongar? In
that case, I assume 2 or 4 car units would have been used. Also, the
Drain uses 4-car 92 stock.

In article , d ()
wrote:

The 3rd cab wasn't in the middle, it was 2 cars from the end. Hence
the subject line. I'd not seen that configuration before - they're
usually in the middle.

Usually maybe but there's no reason why they have to be.

Why are there extra cabs anyway? The 92 stock was always going to be 8
cars everywhere AFAIK. Are they just spares in case of failure?

They wanted the flexibility while cutting down the number of cabs. The R
stock demonstrated the costs of fixed train formations, with every car
having an allocated place in a train (apart from the 6-to-8 car addition
of a second 2-car unit) and most stock from 1960 till 1992 having more
cabs than really needed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 18 Mar, 16:54, wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

The 3rd cab wasn't in the middle, it was 2 cars from the end. Hence
the subject line. I'd not seen that configuration before *- they're
usually in the middle.

Usually maybe but there's no reason why they have to be.

Not even usually. They are not four-car units, so if there's a cab
unit not at the end of the train, it's just as likely to face either
way.

Same situation with the C stock where the unit in the middle can face
either way. The C stock could give the impression of being a four car
unit plus an extra two, but it's really three twos. The 1992 stock is
four twos.


Why are there extra cabs anyway? The 92 stock was always going to be 8
cars everywhere AFAIK. Are they just spares in case of failure?

They wanted the flexibility while cutting down the number of cabs. The R
stock demonstrated the costs of fixed train formations, with every car
having an allocated place in a train (apart from the 6-to-8 car addition
of a second 2-car unit) and most stock from 1960 till 1992 having more
cabs than really needed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel