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.