There were a number of units transferred to the Victoria a few years ago
(72 stock


Done between 1987 and 1989 - thats 20 years ago now.

At *that* point in time, it was a worthwhile investment, 1967/1972
stock was yet 20/25 years old, at half life, no replacement stock or
major line upgrade in sight, indeed no need for such an upgrade, and
it was the *newer* [1972] cars of the two types that got rebuilt then.

We are now 20 years further on, line upgrades are in plan, and this
time it is the older [1967] of the two types - and I'd suggest much
further along their fatigue life - that are being talked about.

If it is the plan that 1967 stock goes to the Bakerloo then they will
be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal.

I can't see how doing this stacks up with Picadilly 1973 stock
repalcement which is some time around 2015 either just before or just
after or at the same time as line ATO.

Why replace 1967 stock in 2019 and 1973 stock in 2015 ?

--
Nick

On Jul 13, 9:16 pm, D7666 wrote:
Why replace 1967 stock in 2019 and 1973 stock in 2015 ?

It would appear the line upgrade programmes are scheduled in order of
each line's need for extra capacity. I don't think there's any
suggestion the 1967 is life-expired just yet - the new stock is just
part of the package of capacity-improvement measures for the Vic.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

On Jul 13, 2:21 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

I don't think there's any
suggestion the 1967 is life-expired just yet - the new stock is just
part of the package of capacity-improvement measures for the Vic.


OK that makes a little more sense if kine rather than stock is the
ruling factor.

But then again, is there not still spare 1972 cars in store ? Why not
use those for victoria line capacity ? Or is this all linked in with
only having the new ATO on new trains and abandoning the old ATO
system ?

--
Nick

On Jul 13, 10:27 pm, D7666 wrote:
But then again, is there not still spare 1972 cars in store ? Why not
use those for victoria line capacity ? Or is this all linked in with
only having the new ATO on new trains and abandoning the old ATO
system ?

There's no space to run any more trains. They need to be able to run
closer together, which means new signalling and better acceleration/
braking and improved dwell times (eg bigger doors), all of which
points to replacing the stock. The trains will also be slightly bigger
and a few feet longer, and the aisles/vestibules will be bigger,
allowing a few more people on each one.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

On Jul 13, 3:24 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

There's no space to run any more trains. They need to be able to run
closer together, which means new signalling and better acceleration/
braking and improved dwell times (eg bigger doors), all of which
points to replacing the stock.



Which is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y why I say the Bakerloo too needs new trains and
not cast offs.

They need to get on with it now not 12 years time.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
ps.com...
There were a number of units transferred to the Victoria a few years
ago
(72 stock


Done between 1987 and 1989 - thats 20 years ago now.

At *that* point in time, it was a worthwhile investment, 1967/1972
stock was yet 20/25 years old, at half life, no replacement stock or
major line upgrade in sight, indeed no need for such an upgrade, and
it was the *newer* [1972] cars of the two types that got rebuilt then.

We are now 20 years further on, line upgrades are in plan, and this
time it is the older [1967] of the two types - and I'd suggest much
further along their fatigue life - that are being talked about.

If it is the plan that 1967 stock goes to the Bakerloo then they will
be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal.


fx/Isle of Wight:

52 - is that all?

Paul

On Jul 13, 2:24 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal.

fx/Isle of Wight:

52 - is that all?

Well if you research back through my IOW comments I also take the view
that perpetually replacing IOW trains with ex LU stock is not a way
forward and they also should have new trains if we are to have
serious investement policy in railways.

Quite apart from that, running the Bakerloo with 52 year old cars day
in day out is rather different than the IOW.

People need to stop looking at old trains with rose timted glasses.
1938 stock on LU became desperately unreliable towards the end on the
Northern Line. It had simply reached its life.

Is there any proof that 1967 stock has a longer life than 1938 stock -
and bear in mind 1967 stock has been hammered on a very intensive
service since day 1 - at least 1938 stock had a slightly quieter early
life.


--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 13, 2:24 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal.

fx/Isle of Wight:

52 - is that all?

Well if you research back through my IOW comments I also take the view
that perpetually replacing IOW trains with ex LU stock is not a way
forward and they also should have new trains if we are to have
serious investement policy in railways.

Quite apart from that, running the Bakerloo with 52 year old cars day
in day out is rather different than the IOW.

People need to stop looking at old trains with rose timted glasses.
1938 stock on LU became desperately unreliable towards the end on the
Northern Line. It had simply reached its life.

Is there any proof that 1967 stock has a longer life than 1938 stock -
and bear in mind 1967 stock has been hammered on a very intensive
service since day 1 - at least 1938 stock had a slightly quieter early
life.

Perhaps I should have included a few smileys there Nick...

Paul

On Jul 13, 2:46 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Perhaps I should have included a few smileys there Nick...


Gotcha.

)

--
Nick