Yesterday when I stopped by my PMB, June Modern Railways had finally
arrived. Among the items of particular interest to me, where the
article on Crossrail, and a beautiful picture of a 1930 stock tube
train on tour.

It seems that Crossrail opening is determined to be 2017. We can only
hope. I was living in London at the time of the, then, Fleet Line
(Jubilee Line phase one) construction. It
was a fairly short stretch from Baker Street to Charring Cross. But
construction seemed to last forever.

The artist's renderings of the stations looked very good. Tottenham
Court Road is very cramped these days. The new version appears to be
considerably larger.

Sadly taxpayer pounds are being spent on reversing sidings at
Maidenhead. One hopes Crossrail will run to Reading before many years
have passed.

The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.

Later this week I will take a look at "Informed Sources".
..

1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway. However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

On Jun 9, 10:56*am, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:
1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. *Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. *The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway.

That sounds about right.

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Indeed, I could not agree more. They were wonderful trains. They
almost define my years in London. Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

On 9 June, 19:53, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:56*am, "Stephen O'Connell" wrote:

1506 wrote:
The 1938 tube train looked perfect. *Although ISTR in service these
units ran with black roofs. *The preserved one is all over red.

IIRC they were a darkish Grey. (Which could be black!) The roofs
certainly weren't red in my day anyway.

That sounds about right.

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.

On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..

Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?

They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of ''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s - they do
look very similar externally and internally. I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. 38s and
62s they had no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

--
Nick

On 9 June, 21:15, wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of *''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually *much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s *- they do
look very similar externally and internally. *I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. * 38s and
62s they had *no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

I think people would mainly remember the colour. No 1959 or 1962
stock appeared in red till long after the 1938 stock was withdrawn.
Also, I don't think the 1938 stock could have been as bouncy ...

I used to know all the visual (not technical) differences between 1959
and 1962 (and C69 and C77) but the differences tended to be
obliterated with subsequent refurbishment and so on.

On Jun 9, 1:15*pm, wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of *''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually *much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s *- they do
look very similar externally and internally. *I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. * 38s and
62s they had *no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

My "London Period" was 1967 thru 1975. The only Red painted stock at
that time was the Standards and the 1938. 1938 Stock had much cleaner
lines. OTOH, the oval windows on some Standard Stock cars were very
easy on the eye.

My experience was only as a passenger/enthusiast. I never knew that
the 1938 stock was a maintenance headache. Who would have known?
They seemed so solid.

On Jun 9, 9:41*pm, 1506 wrote:

They seemed so solid.


A MetroVick CoBo is also quite solid.


--
Nick

On 9 June, 21:41, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:15*pm, wrote:



On Jun 9, 8:57*pm, MIG wrote:

However, that's only a minor
nitpick. They are lovely trains to see around, especialy in a red
livery. It brings back soooo many memories..
Indeed, I could not agree more. *They were wonderful trains. *They
almost define my years in London. *Will there ever be another build of
subway trains as iconic?
They were the first large production run of tube sized trains that had
smooth roofs and all the equipment under the floors, avoiding the
messy look of the "standard" stock, so a real leap forward in design.- Hide quoted text -

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of *''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually *much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s *- they do
look very similar externally and internally. *I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. * 38s and
62s they had *no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

My "London Period" was 1967 thru 1975. *The only Red painted stock at
that time was the Standards and the 1938. *1938 Stock had much cleaner
lines. *OTOH, the oval windows on some Standard Stock cars were very
easy on the eye.

My experience was only as a passenger/enthusiast. *I never knew that
the 1938 stock was a maintenance headache. *Who would have known?
They seemed so solid.

Don't forget the CO/CP stock on the District, which was rather red.

wrote:

Visually iconic maybe - but talk to any fleet engineer and you won't
hear the same. They were notoriously unreliable from the word go,
right from the very start. When new they never attained the
reliability of the late builds of ''standard'' (or pre-38 stock if
prefer that term), and by 1960s ''standards'' were actually much more
reliable. Just about the only advantage to operators of 38s was no
equipment compartments above floor taking up space.

Unreliable? Yet some of them are still operating on the Isle of Weight
some 60 years after they were built! If that's unreliable, I hope I
still am at that age!!! :-)

Also IMHO the layman easily confuses 38s with 59s and 62s - they do
look very similar externally and internally. I wonder how many ''fond
memories'' of 38s are actualy not 38s at all.

I'm pretty sure the average punter was incapable of telling the
difference between a SR 4Sub and 4EPB or between 12ICBC and 12Rep/TC
and even nright at the end of SR Mk.1 there were still ''enthusiats''
incapble of determing Veps and Cigs other than by numbers. 38s and
62s they had no hope unless primed with red and aluminuim colours - I
bet they'd not know the details.

The curve of the roof at the front of the train would give it away as a
38. The 59 and 62's (and the three 56's) were different to look at from
the front, as the destination blind was at the top in the roof, although
the insides were similar. The 38's used to have the five headcode lights
too. But yes, people not interested in Underground trains might confuse
them.

I'm still fond of those trains!