Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
[D Stock referb]
Not that many. 6 or 7? In the lifetime of a train thats nothing.

It started in 2005; the trains will start to be withdrawn in 2015
IIRC, so it was at around the 2/3rds mark of the stocks life, and
will be in service for a decade.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Also, wasn't the D stock upgrade a relatively light one? They cut new
windows in the car ends, and replaced some surface materials, but the seats
stayed largely the same. And some work was certainly needed by then: the
trains were 25 years old, and looked it. They'll be around 35 years old
when they start to go, which is a respectable life, though not in the same
league as the venerable A stock.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:06:02 -0600
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
[D Stock referb]
Not that many. 6 or 7? In the lifetime of a train thats nothing.

It started in 2005; the trains will start to be withdrawn in 2015
IIRC, so it was at around the 2/3rds mark of the stocks life, and
will be in service for a decade.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Also, wasn't the D stock upgrade a relatively light one? They cut new
windows in the car ends, and replaced some surface materials, but the seats
stayed largely the same. And some work was certainly needed by then: the

Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

B2003

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:29:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:06:02 -0600
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
[D Stock referb]
Not that many. 6 or 7? In the lifetime of a train thats nothing.

It started in 2005; the trains will start to be withdrawn in 2015
IIRC, so it was at around the 2/3rds mark of the stocks life, and
will be in service for a decade.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Also, wasn't the D stock upgrade a relatively light one? They cut new
windows in the car ends, and replaced some surface materials, but the seats
stayed largely the same. And some work was certainly needed by then: the

Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

Yes, I'd forgotten about the new displays. I suppose, in retrospect,
they should have done the refurb a few years earlier, had they known
then about the S stock plans. But wasn't the refurb done as part of
the Metronet PPP, with this refurb probably written into the contract
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be good
for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the district
in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic re-inventing the
wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money retendering for an
entirely new design for its own sake rather than buying a proven one.

B2003

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:43:23 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:


But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be good
for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the district
in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic re-inventing the
wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money retendering for an
entirely new design for its own sake rather than buying a proven one.

Once the production ended, it would be much more expensive to place a
repeat order for another S stock fleet. At the very least, two smaller
orders cost you much more per unit than one giant order with its
economies of scale.

If you left it more than a couple of years, then costs rise further:
the Derby factory may have gone, as might some of the suppliers, and
many of the out-of-production components might have to be replaced by
newer, different models, which all puts up costs. You'd almost
certainly end up with a different, incompatible fleet, even if they
looked similar (like the 1995 and 1996 TS), which would reduce
flexibility.

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?

On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?



Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600
wrote:
The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I wonder if they stripped the 83s for spares for the D stock before they
were scrapped?

B2003

On 10 Jan, 12:29, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:06:02 -0600

Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
[D Stock referb]
Not that many. 6 or 7? In the lifetime of a train thats nothing.

It started in 2005; the trains will start to be withdrawn in 2015
IIRC, so it was at around the 2/3rds mark of the stocks life, and
will be in service for a decade.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Also, wasn't the D stock upgrade a relatively light one? They cut new
windows in the car ends, and replaced some surface materials, but the seats
stayed largely the same. And some work was certainly needed by then: the

Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

But it is taxpayer's money. These people (public bodies) think they
can always raise more. They are wrong of course.