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