London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · October 30th 14, 02:57 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

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.

Only 2 8-car trains of R stock were all-aluminium. All but 6 of the driving
cars were steel bodied, converted from Q38 stock trailers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel