In message
, John
B writes

The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. *Last I heard,
there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name
escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95
stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings
for spares and the like over their three lines.

Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little
choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and
suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill
along.

Not sure I follow here. Surely, since the costs fall on Tubelines,
having them responsible for the choice of supplier makes sense - and
as you say, makes them likely to pick Almost...?

Agreed but which flies in the face of earlier postings that exhorted a
standardised fleet across LU (maybe they should just build some more 59
stock?)
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In message , Recliner
writes

The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard,
there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name
escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved,
95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their
stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines.

Ah, I was under the impression that this project had been deferred,
thanks to the squeeze on TfL's budget.

I've heard similar rumours but the official line we're getting is that
the money is still there and the project is moving ahead and the above
is the current situation.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:44:42 +0100, wrote:

Is it really to much to ask for LUL to stick with a common design to save
on the cost of a new one as opposed to just adding extra orders onto the
book?
Not to mention being able to spread staff maintenance expertise over
more than 1 line, saving on the cost of spares etc. While trainbuilders
seem to like to pretend they're designing the space
shuttles replacement there really hasn't been any large scale
new tech in trains for the last 10 years so why bother
with yet another design?

LU rolling stock lasts (should last) about 40 years. That means stock
should be ordered at about 5-year intervals.

Technology moves on. Even if it didn't, priorities would.

For example, low energy consumption should be given much higher priority
now than it was in the 95/6 stock.

Occasionally a 5-year old design may be the best option, but not often.


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.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:38:34 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald ]
wrote:
The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender.

That's a bit early, isn't it? If the modernisation programme is over
budget, deferring this build would be one way to spread the cost.

IIRC the 73 stock went into service in 1975, so its replacements shouldn't
be needed until 2015.

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.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
Better for whom? If we were buying the trains on the traditional "you
deliver them, then you go away and we maintain them" model, then I'd
see your logic - but as it is, all cost savings are real over the
train's life, not just short-term.

As some one else mentioned, the 92 stock disprove that theory.

possible to swap branches NW of Baker Street between the Jubilee and
the Bakerloo I guess, and there's obviously the Northern Line split
potential, but that's hair-splitting), the benefits that arise from
doing that don't really exist.

Plenty of train types have swapped lines in the past. Now, because of the
one type per line approach thats unlikely to be possible in the future without
some expensive mods to either the trains, signalling or both.

I'd also say that the A, C, 67, 73, 92 and 95 stocks are among the
best metro trains from their respective eras I've been on globally
[the 83 and D stocks lose due to their moronic door arrangements]. The
09 looks pretty impressive too, as do the pics and mock-ups of the S.

The 09 looked nice in the euston mockup but I'll reserve judgement until
I've been on a real one. The 95/96 stock are looking decided grubby these
days and the appalling acceleration of the 96 stock on the northern line
doesn't exactly give it a cutting edge feel. As for the 92 stock, you have
to be kidding. Good acceleration yes, but they're rusting to bits after
only 15 years and the motors had a habit of falling off!

B2003

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:32:22 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
Technology moves on. Even if it didn't, priorities would.

For example, low energy consumption should be given much higher priority
now than it was in the 95/6 stock.

If low energy consumption is a priority now (why it wouldn't have been in 1995
I don't know but anyway..) why are LUL having to upgrade the power supply on
the victoria line to cope with the new 09 stock? I wouldn't call using more
power that the old trains energy efficient would you?

Occasionally a 5-year old design may be the best option, but not often.

Even car designs last longer than 5 years and even then most of the changes
in the new model are cosmetic. What is so radical in train designs that they
must change even more often?

B2003

In message op.uyjjm50pby8eno@sheepdog, Colin McKenzie
writes

The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender.

That's a bit early, isn't it? If the modernisation programme is over
budget, deferring this build would be one way to spread the cost.

IIRC the 73 stock went into service in 1975, so its replacements
shouldn't be needed until 2015.

It's (currently!) designated 13 Tube Stock so that's about right.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock
would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and
setting up a production line from scratch, though.

If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly line
tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much difference between
09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way or the
other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to equipment?

Its not like a train builder having to squash a UIC loading gauge train
by 6 inches width and a foot in height to fit the UKs hopeless mainline loading
gauge.

B2003

wrote in message
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:32:22 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
Technology moves on. Even if it didn't, priorities would.

For example, low energy consumption should be given much higher
priority now than it was in the 95/6 stock.

If low energy consumption is a priority now (why it wouldn't have
been in 1995 I don't know but anyway..) why are LUL having to upgrade
the power supply on the victoria line to cope with the new 09 stock?
I wouldn't call using more power that the old trains energy efficient
would you?

True, but the new Victoria line trains are longer, faster and more
frequent, so that may account for some of the extra power.


Occasionally a 5-year old design may be the best option, but not
often.

Even car designs last longer than 5 years and even then most of the
changes in the new model are cosmetic. What is so radical in train
designs that they must change even more often?

Cars typically have an eight year production life, but the technology is
often updated during that time. Right now, most new cars are markedly
more fuel efficient than their predecessors, so there really are major
technology changes happening. For example, engines themselves are
cleaner and more economical, they may shut down when the car is stopped,
they may only power the alternator when the car is not accelerating,
etc. And there's lots more to come.

I don't see why trains shouldn't also get significantly more efficient,
more comfortable and more reliable over time (though, of course,
sometimes they get worse, like the 1983 stock, which was the last
LU-designed train).

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:30 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
True, but the new Victoria line trains are longer, faster and more
frequent, so that may account for some of the extra power.

I suppose.

I don't see why trains shouldn't also get significantly more efficient,
more comfortable and more reliable over time (though, of course,

I don't know about reliability but there does seem to be a trend of every
new electric train in this country using more power than its predecessor.
In the case of the 377s significantly more. This is in stark contrast to
cars which despite getting heavier year on year are still using less fuel
with each generation. Whatever the train builders are concentrating on in
their designs, energy efficiency doesn't seem to be it.

B2003