London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · October 30th 14, 08:50 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article

rg, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(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.

The IOW issue is the need for tube size trains. Until very recently
they all had steel underframes and only bodies in aluminium, giving
great scope for galvanic corrosion on Ryde Pier.

AIUI the first tube stock with aluminium underframes and bodies was
the 83TS. Maybe its other issues meant that SWT wouldn't touch them.

Did they have aluminium underframes? I thought they were still steel, and
ditto with newer stock.

Not my understanding. I'm not sure about 92 and later stock which aren't
available for the IOW anyway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel