On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:54:06 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:

I thought the wheels and bogies were common to D78 and 83TS?

I'm pretty sure they're common between D and 1973ts p; don't know about
83ts.

Checking in Hardy I see you are right. They were based on the 73TS. The D
stock has small wheels, that I do know, and they are interchangeable with
73TS. It is the single leaf doors and flat fronts they share with 83TS.

Yes, but I suspect there's no shared components. The 83ts doors are
obviously much smaller, and so probably have different actuators.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:47:37 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:41:40 +0000
Philip wrote:
On 10/01/2013 12:29, d wrote:
Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

No! No it isn't. 10 Years between refurb/refresh/replacment cycles is
absolutely ideal in my view and needs to happen more often. We've got
plently of nasty, decrepit rolling stock that looks well over due
similar treatment on the national railway network. Keeping and making
people travel in the original D stock environment for another 10 years
would have been a scandal.

Why? What exactly was so wrong with it that a good clean wouldn't have sorted?
Apart from the information systems most refurbs IMO were utterly pointless.
They usually ended up just reducing the number of seats with the usual
bull**** disabled access reasons given. As a former daily piccadilly line
user I wasn't thrilled about the seating capacity of the trains dropping
by something like 20% due to the refurb they had in the 90s. And anyone who
says it increased standing capacity is talking through their arse.

I think the end windows are popular with customers. I don't think the
D stock lost any seats; the Picc lost seats in favour of luggage
space, not wheel chairs, and I can attest that the luggage space is
heavily used on the Heathrow branch. Presumably some of the less
visible refurb work is designed to improve reliability, etc.

On 10/01/2013 12:35, 77002 wrote:
On 10 Jan, 12:29, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:06:02 -0600

Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
[D Stock referb]
Not that many. 6 or 7? In the lifetime of a train thats nothing.

It started in 2005; the trains will start to be withdrawn in 2015
IIRC, so it was at around the 2/3rds mark of the stocks life, and
will be in service for a decade.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Also, wasn't the D stock upgrade a relatively light one? They cut new
windows in the car ends, and replaced some surface materials, but the seats
stayed largely the same. And some work was certainly needed by then: the

Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

But it is taxpayer's money. These people (public bodies) think they
can always raise more. They are wrong of course.

Unlike the TOCs, which can suck up as much as they like.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 10/01/2013 12:51, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:35:47 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

But it is taxpayer's money. These people (public bodies) think they
can always raise more. They are wrong of course.

Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps, whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin Edwards wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it. Its not the biggest, doesn't have the
most stations or the most frequent service and the "its the oldest" excuse
didn't wash after the first systems upgrade in the 19th century.

B2003

On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html

B2003

On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , d
wrote:
If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html

That just talks about the fares. If a government heavily subsidises a
system, it will appear cheaper but just because the costs are being
hidden. And you also need to take account of typical wages to make a
fair comparison.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: