In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article

,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the
forum related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I
can only undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to
use web forums.

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...strict&action=
display&thread=1200067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

Up to a point only. None of the links from Google were _to_ that site,
even though many referred to it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jan 11, 10:59*pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find through
Google regards 2005 as "latest".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Don't know why you had a problem Googling it - I just have and it was
at the top of the list....

However, the forum address is http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi

HTH

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article

,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the
forum related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I
can only undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to
use web forums.

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...strict&action=
display&thread=1200067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

Up to a point only. None of the links from Google were _to_ that site,
even though many referred to it.

I found the thread in about ten seconds; I call this "easily
findable".

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=districtdave+forum gives as the first
link http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi - from there a
quick scroll down shows a collection of sub-forums for each line. The
District Line is self-evidently the one where the topic is likely to
be discussed, and there it is as the third topic in the District Line
sub-forum. (It was the second topic last night...)

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the
forum related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand
that I can only undertake to be as accurate as I am able
in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to
use web forums.


http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...strict&action=
display&thread=1200067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

Up to a point only. None of the links from Google were _to_ that
site, even though many referred to it.

I found the thread in about ten seconds; I call this "easily
findable".

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=districtdave+forum gives as the first
link http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi - from there a
quick scroll down shows a collection of sub-forums for each line. The
District Line is self-evidently the one where the topic is likely to
be discussed, and there it is as the third topic in the District
Line
sub-forum. (It was the second topic last night...)

I wasn't searching for forum since the reference here was to web site.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the
forum related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand
that I can only undertake to be as accurate as I am able
in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to
use web forums.


http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...strict&action=
display&thread=1200067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

Up to a point only. None of the links from Google were _to_ that
site, even though many referred to it.

I found the thread in about ten seconds; I call this "easily
findable".

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=districtdave+forum gives as the first
link http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi - from there a
quick scroll down shows a collection of sub-forums for each line. The
District Line is self-evidently the one where the topic is likely to
be discussed, and there it is as the third topic in the District
Line
sub-forum. (It was the second topic last night...)

I wasn't searching for forum since the reference here was to web site.

From:
Newsgroups: uk.transport.london
Subject: Last unpainted D Stock (last "silver" Underground train)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:


On Jan 11, 6:31*pm, wrote:
Actually I'm glad my info is incorrect. Let's hope the last working is
an all-day runner/early stow so that it can be seen in daylight. Be
nice if the last train can be spruced up - shoebeams repainted,
original all-red roundels restored. Well I can dream!

I'm afraid you probably are dreaming i a number of respects.

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

My info came from the editor of Underground News, You can't trust
anybody these days!!!

"MIG" wrote in message

On Jan 11, 6:26 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article

Shame! In fact the first unpainted train entered service in 1952. The
original trial was of just one R49 car. I don't think that was as
early as 1949 either. The R stock is another case of the years in
the stock codes representing more aspiration than fact. The
programme to switch all R stock trains to silver (mostly painted)
wasn't completed until 1965.


I always assumed that the years in the stock codes were based on
orders rather than introduction. Like the D78 stock first being
introduced in 1980.

Actually, I think the date numbers represent the earliest envisaged date
of introduction; the actual entry into service is usually a year or two
later. The orders would have been placed years earlier (it takes much
more than two years from order to introduction). Of course, there are
some anomalies, like the 1995 and 1996 stocks, which actually entered
service in the opposite order, or mark 2 batches.

Maybe the dates are now more realistic -- after all, the 2009 stock
started testing on the Victoria line in 2007. But I'm not sure when it
will enter pax service.

In article , _dot_uk
(Recliner) wrote:

"MIG" wrote in message

On Jan 11, 6:26 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article

Shame! In fact the first unpainted train entered service in 1952.
The
original trial was of just one R49 car. I don't think that was as
early as 1949 either. The R stock is another case of the years in
the stock codes representing more aspiration than fact. The
programme to switch all R stock trains to silver (mostly painted)
wasn't completed until 1965.

I always assumed that the years in the stock codes were based on
orders rather than introduction. Like the D78 stock first being
introduced in 1980.

Actually, I think the date numbers represent the earliest envisaged
date of introduction; the actual entry into service is usually a
year or two later. The orders would have been placed years earlier
(it takes much more than two years from order to introduction). Of
course, there are some anomalies, like the 1995 and 1996 stocks,
which actually entered service in the opposite order, or mark 2
batches.

Maybe the dates are now more realistic -- after all, the 2009 stock
started testing on the Victoria line in 2007. But I'm not sure when
it will enter pax service.

Tube stock used to be quite good at entering service in the right year,
e.g. 1959, 1960, 1962 and 1967.

A recent new idea is to pretend that the additional Jubilee stock is also
1996, including the otherwise rather different treadover plates from the
originals.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message

In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:


Maybe the dates are now more realistic -- after all, the 2009 stock
started testing on the Victoria line in 2007. But I'm not sure when
it will enter pax service.

Tube stock used to be quite good at entering service in the right
year, e.g. 1959, 1960, 1962 and 1967.

Surely the 1967 stock only entered service in 1968?


A recent new idea is to pretend that the additional Jubilee stock is
also 1996, including the otherwise rather different treadover plates
from the originals.

That's what I meant by the mark 2 comment, which also applied to the
1972 stock. The C stock also came in two widely separated batches (68
and 77).

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
() wrote:
The last unrefurbished D Stock train is scheduled to operate on the
District Line on 21st February 2007. This will bring to an end the era
of unpainted aluminium UndergrounD trains which first began in 1949
(and also on the District Line with the R49 Stock).

Shame! In fact the first unpainted train entered service in 1952. The
original trial was of just one R49 car. I don't think that was as early
as 1949 either. The R stock is another case of the years in the stock
codes representing more aspiration than fact. The programme to switch all
R stock trains to silver (mostly painted) wasn't completed until 1965.

But that wasn't the end of red trains on the District. I had to check
my memory that the Edgware Road to Putney Bridge trains were always
red. These were a different sort of stock (O/P) - but apart from the
colour they looked almost identical from the outside. They seem to
have stayed red until withdrawn when the C77 stock came in (around
1979-80, it appears).

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.