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