On 30.10.14 13:27, wrote:
On 30.10.14 12:41, 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.


Perhaps because it's not that close to the sea?


London actually is close to the sea, though LUL trains aren't
necessarily exposed to the sea.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:27:36 +0000, "
wrote:

On 30.10.14 12:41, 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.


Perhaps because it's not that close to the sea?

I was responding to Boltar's point that, "Aluminium isn't quite the
panacea people seem to think. You can get some serious galvanic
corrosion issues if you join it to steel".

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-30 12:03:45 +0000, d said:

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.

Old Land Rovers are the classic example. I wonder will we see composites
in trains any time soon? I know there are/were Hungarian coaches made of
fibreglass, but I guess those wouldn't meet UK crashworthiness rules.

We've had fibreglass on trains in non-structural panels for decades, such
as HST and newer nose cones or some internal panels. That's the same as
road cars, where GRP is always non-structural. Of course, a few very
expensive sports cars have carbon fibre tubs, like F1 cars, but that's for
extreme weight saving, which isn't really needed in trains.

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article , (Mizter
T) wrote:

On 29/10/2014 17:52, wrote:

In article ,
d () wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:40:05 -0500
Recliner wrote:
The venerable A stock was worn out, so the sagging seats had become
very uncomfortable, the ride was poor, the compressors deafening,
the windows leaked, etc. I didn't use them in their heyday, but
suspect that they were nice trains in the 1960s and 70s, just as the
S stock is today.

I suspect the chances of any of the modern stock lasting 50 years
without a virtual rebuild (as opposed to a refurb) is close to zero.
They're simply not built as strongly inside or out. The 2009 stock on
the victoria line is already starting to look a bit worn out
internally in places.

When the A stock was built, the idea that it would have lasted 50
years was unimaginable. I think the oldest of the EMU stock it
replaced was 35 years old and the locomotives under 40. Some steam
carriage stock may have been as old (ignoring the special case of the
Chesham set).

Perhaps no one was as pessimistic as would have proved to be
justified about the lack of willingness of coming governments to
invest in the network...

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.

Surely not? What about the R, 56 and 59 stocks? They also had Al
bodies, but were outlasted by the A stock.

Only 2 8-car trains of R stock were all-aluminium. All but 6 of the driving
cars were steel bodied, converted from Q38 stock trailers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:30:54 -0500
Recliner wrote:
road cars, where GRP is always non-structural. Of course, a few very
expensive sports cars have carbon fibre tubs, like F1 cars, but that's for
extreme weight saving, which isn't really needed in trains.

Carbon fibre = enviromental nightmare. Nasty to create and almost impossible to
recycle. The only sure fire way to get rid of it is to burn it. A similar
story for most composites TBH. It'll be interesting to see what will happen
to old 787s and future composite airliners when they reach the end of their
lives. Dumped in the desert for eternity probably.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:30:54 -0500
Recliner wrote:
road cars, where GRP is always non-structural. Of course, a few very
expensive sports cars have carbon fibre tubs, like F1 cars, but that's for
extreme weight saving, which isn't really needed in trains.

Carbon fibre = enviromental nightmare. Nasty to create and almost impossible to
recycle. The only sure fire way to get rid of it is to burn it. A similar
story for most composites TBH. It'll be interesting to see what will happen
to old 787s and future composite airliners when they reach the end of their
lives. Dumped in the desert for eternity probably.

Yes, very likely. Even aluminium bodied planes seem to sit there for many
years before parting out.

wrote:
In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article , (Mizter
T) wrote:

On 29/10/2014 17:52, wrote:

In article ,
d () wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:40:05 -0500
Recliner wrote:
The venerable A stock was worn out, so the sagging seats had become
very uncomfortable, the ride was poor, the compressors deafening,
the windows leaked, etc. I didn't use them in their heyday, but
suspect that they were nice trains in the 1960s and 70s, just as the
S stock is today.

I suspect the chances of any of the modern stock lasting 50 years
without a virtual rebuild (as opposed to a refurb) is close to zero.
They're simply not built as strongly inside or out. The 2009 stock on
the victoria line is already starting to look a bit worn out
internally in places.

When the A stock was built, the idea that it would have lasted 50
years was unimaginable. I think the oldest of the EMU stock it
replaced was 35 years old and the locomotives under 40. Some steam
carriage stock may have been as old (ignoring the special case of the
Chesham set).

Perhaps no one was as pessimistic as would have proved to be
justified about the lack of willingness of coming governments to
invest in the network...

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.

Surely not? What about the R, 56 and 59 stocks? They also had Al
bodies, but were outlasted by the A stock.

Only 2 8-car trains of R stock were all-aluminium. All but 6 of the driving
cars were steel bodied, converted from Q38 stock trailers.

But they were the first aluminium bodied LU trains, weren't they, well
before the A stock?

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

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