" wrote:
On 10/01/2013 09:43, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 08:40:25 -0800 (PST)
P160AC1 wrote:
Made me notice that once the D78s on the District are replaced

Personally I think someone needs to open an enquiry over the money spent on
the recent refurb of the D stock given how much it cost and how little
value LU are going to get from it given that they're all going to go for
scrap in a few years. We all know how TfL love wasting money while claiming
poverty , but this really does take the ****.


Can't they find another job for the D78s, somewhere? I know that they
Island Line is out as an option, but what about some small branch line
somewhere up in the Midlands?

Well, there was a short-lived proposal to use them on the Harrogate line,
but the idea of installing fourth (or even third) rail electrification
would probably kill most plans. After all, they'll be about 35 years old
when LU gets rid of them, and probably in need of another refurbishment
before they could be used elsewhere.

On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?



Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

" wrote:
On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?



Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

Presumably both statements are true (as each of these MetCam designs would
have evolved from its predecessor) but apart from the single-leaf doors,
what else did do the D and 83 share? And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

In message

, Recliner wrote:
And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line, going to
Charing Cross. The pattern of service on that line was that almost all
passengers boarded before or at Baker Street and alighted at or after
it. So, apart from Baker Street itself, there was very little conflict
of passenger flows at stations. Combine that with the large amount of
outdoors running and single leaf made sense.

Once the JLE opened, passenger flows were completely different and there
were many stations where large numbers of passengers both boarded and
alighted. A different door layout was needed.

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

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message
, Recliner wrote:
And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line, going to Charing
Cross. The pattern of service on that line was that almost all passengers
boarded before or at Baker Street and alighted at or after it. So, apart
from Baker Street itself, there was very little conflict of passenger
flows at stations. Combine that with the large amount of outdoors running
and single leaf made sense.

Once the JLE opened, passenger flows were completely different and there
were many stations where large numbers of passengers both boarded and
alighted. A different door layout was needed.

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.

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

" wrote:
On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
d () wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of
money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a
full service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so
must be good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S
stock for the district in another 10 years other I suppose that their
own idiotic re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on
wasting money retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake
rather than buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We
should count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the
contemporary single leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn
well before it was life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common
components under the solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?

Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

Presumably both statements are true (as each of these MetCam designs would
have evolved from its predecessor) but apart from the single-leaf doors,
what else did do the D and 83 share? And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

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

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

" wrote:
On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
d () wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of
money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a
full service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so
must be good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S
stock for the district in another 10 years other I suppose that their
own idiotic re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on
wasting money retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake
rather than buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We
should count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the
contemporary single leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn
well before it was life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common
components under the solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?

Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

Presumably both statements are true (as each of these MetCam designs would
have evolved from its predecessor) but apart from the single-leaf doors,
what else did do the D and 83 share? And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

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.

On 10/01/2013 12:29, d 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.

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.

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.

B2003

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel