On 2014-10-29 17:52:22 +0000, said:

Will any new stock in future not have LED lights? It's close to a tipping
point.

I would expect so. My house does, FWIW! But I hope they don't go for
stark daylight blue strips like a lot of buses have, and go for classy
warm white spots. They cost me about 8 quid a go, but my house has the
Philips 35W equivalent (and some 50W equivalent) warm white GU10
replacements, and you can barely tell they aren't real other than the
fact that they don't kick out 30W of heat along with the 5W of light
like real GU10s do.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-10-29 20:06:16 +0000, Mizter T said:

They're not a suggestion of bloody moving screens on board is there?
That'd be sure to bring out my inner vandal... (a jury of fellow Tube
users wouldn't convict!)

I'm quite a fan of the Infoscreen system they had (may still do) in
Hamburg. They were 17"-ish LCD monitors hung from the ceiling above
the seats, and showed an almost PowerPoint style rolling presentation
of news, weather, newspaper style cartoons (sometimes slightly
animated) and other daily stuff with the odd bit of static advertising,
and no sound. When the next stop was called, this would be interrupted
and the screen would display the name of the next stop superimposed
onto a photo of a distinctive local feature or a distinctive feature of
the station itself.

I think on the subsurface stock that sort of thing would be very
welcome to me, though on the deep Tube it'd be hard to fit it in
properly.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-10-30 00:07:33 +0000, said:

I think that the coverings over the lights could have been better,
rather than those flimsy metal covers.

Really, they could have done better on that.

The advantage of the metal fins is that unlike solid plastic covers
they don't end up full of flies and general detritus. The Desiros also
have this style and it looks fine to me. They aren't particularly
flimsy on the Desiros, though they do bend a bit if whacked with heavy
things like bags.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

On 29/10/2014 17:52, wrote:

In article ,
d () wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:40:05 -0500
Recliner wrote:
The venerable A stock was worn out, so the sagging seats had become
very uncomfortable, the ride was poor, the compressors deafening, the
windows leaked, etc. I didn't use them in their heyday, but suspect
that they were nice trains in the 1960s and 70s, just as the S stock
is today.

I suspect the chances of any of the modern stock lasting 50 years
without a virtual rebuild (as opposed to a refurb) is close to zero.
They're simply not built as strongly inside or out. The 2009 stock on
the victoria line is already starting to look a bit worn out internally
in places.

When the A stock was built, the idea that it would have lasted 50 years
was unimaginable. I think the oldest of the EMU stock it replaced was
35 years old and the locomotives under 40. Some steam carriage stock
may have been as old (ignoring the special case of the Chesham set).

Perhaps no one was as pessimistic as would have proved to be
justified about the lack of willingness of coming governments to
invest in the network...

I suspect there are more positive reasons for the A stock longevity. The
mid-life refurb was worthwhile, for example. It was the first stock that was
all-aluminium which reduced corrosion problems AIUI.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

On 29/10/2014 17:52, wrote:

In article ,
d () wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:40:05 -0500
Recliner wrote:
The venerable A stock was worn out, so the sagging seats had become
very uncomfortable, the ride was poor, the compressors deafening, the
windows leaked, etc. I didn't use them in their heyday, but suspect
that they were nice trains in the 1960s and 70s, just as the S stock
is today.

I suspect the chances of any of the modern stock lasting 50 years
without a virtual rebuild (as opposed to a refurb) is close to zero.
They're simply not built as strongly inside or out. The 2009 stock on
the victoria line is already starting to look a bit worn out internally
in places.

When the A stock was built, the idea that it would have lasted 50 years
was unimaginable. I think the oldest of the EMU stock it replaced was
35 years old and the locomotives under 40. Some steam carriage stock
may have been as old (ignoring the special case of the Chesham set).

Perhaps no one was as pessimistic as would have proved to be
justified about the lack of willingness of coming governments to
invest in the network...

I suspect there are more positive reasons for the A stock longevity. The
mid-life refurb was worthwhile, for example. It was the first stock that was
all-aluminium which reduced corrosion problems AIUI.

Surely not? What about the R, 56 and 59 stocks? They also had Al bodies,
but were outlasted by the A stock.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:20:26 -0500
wrote:
I suspect there are more positive reasons for the A stock longevity. The
mid-life refurb was worthwhile, for example. It was the first stock that was
all-aluminium which reduced corrosion problems AIUI.

Aluminium isn't quite the panacea people seem to think. You can get some
serious galvanic corrosion issues if you join it to steel. I'm not sure how
they get around the problem but its always there waiting to appear.

--
Spud

On 2014-10-30 12:03:45 +0000, d said:

Aluminium isn't quite the panacea people seem to think. You can get some
serious galvanic corrosion issues if you join it to steel. I'm not sure how
they get around the problem but its always there waiting to appear.

Old Land Rovers are the classic example. I wonder will we see
composites in trains any time soon? I know there are/were Hungarian
coaches made of fibreglass, but I guess those wouldn't meet UK
crashworthiness rules.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:03:45 GMT, d wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:20:26 -0500
wrote:
I suspect there are more positive reasons for the A stock longevity. The
mid-life refurb was worthwhile, for example. It was the first stock that was
all-aluminium which reduced corrosion problems AIUI.

Aluminium isn't quite the panacea people seem to think. You can get some
serious galvanic corrosion issues if you join it to steel. I'm not sure how
they get around the problem but its always there waiting to appear.

That's true, and it's reported to be one reason why the IoW railway
has been cautious about buying second-hand modern Tube stock such as
the 59, 67, 83, etc, to run in its salty, sea-sprayed environment.

However, I've not heard that it's been a problem with LU trains
running in London.

On 30.10.14 0:25, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-29 20:06:16 +0000, Mizter T said:

They're not a suggestion of bloody moving screens on board is there?
That'd be sure to bring out my inner vandal... (a jury of fellow Tube
users wouldn't convict!)

I'm quite a fan of the Infoscreen system they had (may still do) in
Hamburg. They were 17"-ish LCD monitors hung from the ceiling above the
seats, and showed an almost PowerPoint style rolling presentation of
news, weather, newspaper style cartoons (sometimes slightly animated)
and other daily stuff with the odd bit of static advertising, and no
sound. When the next stop was called, this would be interrupted and the
screen would display the name of the next stop superimposed onto a photo
of a distinctive local feature or a distinctive feature of the station
itself.

I think on the subsurface stock that sort of thing would be very welcome
to me, though on the deep Tube it'd be hard to fit it in properly.

Neil

They have those on trams in Bremen. They also have postboxes on their trams.

On 30.10.14 12:41, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:03:45 GMT, d wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:20:26 -0500
wrote:
I suspect there are more positive reasons for the A stock longevity. The
mid-life refurb was worthwhile, for example. It was the first stock that was
all-aluminium which reduced corrosion problems AIUI.

Aluminium isn't quite the panacea people seem to think. You can get some
serious galvanic corrosion issues if you join it to steel. I'm not sure how
they get around the problem but its always there waiting to appear.

That's true, and it's reported to be one reason why the IoW railway
has been cautious about buying second-hand modern Tube stock such as
the 59, 67, 83, etc, to run in its salty, sea-sprayed environment.

However, I've not heard that it's been a problem with LU trains
running in London.


Perhaps because it's not that close to the sea?