S7 Stock to Barking
 

Witnessed a new S7 stock in service terminate in the bay platform at
Barking yesterday evening, approx 22:30, seems they are finally
accepted to run the entire H&C line as opposed to just the interim
Hammersith - Moorgate shuttle.

Lots of oohs and aahs from the station staff and fellow pax - a
District driver was very impressed and said he can't wait until he
gets his go on one.

Made me notice that once the D78s on the District are replaced
everything through Barking will be exclusivly of Bombardier erection;
c2c 357s, LO 172s and LU S stock.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 09/01/2013 19:36, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message
,
P160AC1 writes

They've been running through for a few weeks now.

This District driver will be quite sad to see the end of C stock (and D
stock when it comes) as I rather enjoy driving them.


I have always heard C- and D-stock drivers say good things about them.


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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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 ****.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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 ****.

'Recent' refurb? It was quite a few years ago, and the D stock will be the
last to be replaced by the S stock.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:43:41 -0600
Recliner wrote:
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 ****.

'Recent' refurb? It was quite a few years ago, and the D stock will be the
last to be replaced by the S stock.

Not that many. 6 or 7? In the lifetime of a train thats nothing.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

--
Mike Bristow

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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
trains were 25 years old, and looked it. They'll be around 35 years old
when they start to go, which is a respectable life, though not in the same
league as the venerable A stock.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 9 Jan, 16:40, P160AC1 wrote:
Witnessed a new S7 stock in service terminate in the bay platform at
Barking yesterday evening, approx 22:30, seems they are finally
accepted to run the entire H&C line as opposed to just the interim
Hammersith - Moorgate shuttle.

Lots of oohs and aahs from the station staff and fellow pax - a
District driver was very impressed and said he can't wait until he
gets his go on one.

Made me notice that once the D78s on the District are replaced
everything through Barking will be exclusivly of Bombardier erection;
c2c 357s, LO 172s and LU S stock.

Out to Barking is about the right length of trip for S7 stock.
Although I thought there were plans afoot to replace the H&C with an
Uxbridge to Barking Metropolitan Line service.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:29:14 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Yes, I'd forgotten about the new displays. I suppose, in retrospect,
they should have done the refurb a few years earlier, had they known
then about the S stock plans. But wasn't the refurb done as part of
the Metronet PPP, with this refurb probably written into the contract
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

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?

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:43:23 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:


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.

Once the production ended, it would be much more expensive to place a
repeat order for another S stock fleet. At the very least, two smaller
orders cost you much more per unit than one giant order with its
economies of scale.

If you left it more than a couple of years, then costs rise further:
the Derby factory may have gone, as might some of the suppliers, and
many of the out-of-production components might have to be replaced by
newer, different models, which all puts up costs. You'd almost
certainly end up with a different, incompatible fleet, even if they
looked similar (like the 1995 and 1996 TS), which would reduce
flexibility.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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?

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600
wrote:
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 wonder if they stripped the 83s for spares for the D stock before they
were scrapped?

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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 ****.

'Recent' refurb? It was quite a few years ago, and the D stock will be
the
last to be replaced by the S stock.

They were refurbished between summer 2005 and February 2008. So they'll
barely get a decade of use from the refurbs.

John

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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?



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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 10/01/2013 10:43, Recliner wrote:
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 ****.

'Recent' refurb? It was quite a few years ago, and the D stock will be the
last to be replaced by the S stock.


Five to seven years ago is not so long, in relative terms.

I managed to see a westbound S7 at Mile End today. It seemed that the
headlights were a little less intense than the S8s'. I also noticed that
some of the car numbers, had a large blue dot next to them: What does
that mean?

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

" 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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

" 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?

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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:

S7 Stock to Barking
 

"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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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:

S7 Stock to Barking
 

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: