1992 stock Refurbishment?

[Wolfie]

it’s a good job, then, that the W&C 92TS is not being retractioned! You’ll get your DC motor fix - best of both worlds!

Any particular reason for that do you know? Cost or are they just much less heavily used?

 

[Nym]

Any particular reason for that do you know? Cost or are they just much less heavily used?

The lack of ATO means they fail less, it's very difficult to get them out to do the work, and combined with the coming mountain of spares, it's just decided to not be needed.

 

[xtmw]

It is worth noting ATO on the Central Line can't coast unless the coasting vectors are enabled (they only just been switched on and have never been used IIRC) therefore the motors don't have a chance to 'rest'

 

[Wolfie]

The lack of ATO means they fail less, it's very difficult to get them out to do the work, and combined with the coming mountain of spares, it's just decided to not be needed.

I had wondered about the spares situation. TY

 

[SolomonSouth]

It’s happening rather slowly. I don’t think many sets have been done so far.

 

[xtmw]

Only 2 trains are currently in passenger service.

 

[nevango]

Only 2 trains are currently in passenger service.

are they still only on the hainault shuttle?

 

[bluegoblin7]

No - they haen''t been for a while. The CLIP trains are released for full, all day, service - although the trips they are allocated to may only be morning, evening, or early stow.

 

[LUYMun]

I believe the CLIP train mostly runs Ruislip Gardens - Hainault via Woodford, or at least that’s what it was when I rode on it last year.

 

[nevango]

Ah right many thanks, I never usually use the central line so I still havent seen one

 

[vuzzeho]

Have any more trains gone for CLIP? If not, what's the holdup?

 

[xtmw]

I believe the CLIP train mostly runs Ruislip Gardens - Hainault via Woodford, or at least that’s what it was when I rode on it last year.

No mostly Ealing Broadway - Hainault via Newbury Park but sometimes drift off to the Epping/West Ruislip branch

 

[Nym]

Have any more trains gone for CLIP? If not, what's the holdup?

TfL.

For context, CLIP was due to be completed with all fleet delivered in 2022.

 

[vuzzeho]

TfL.

For context, CLIP was due to be completed with all fleet delivered in 2022.

Right, but what specifically are TfL doing or not doing?

 

[GFE]

Firstly the scope of works has drifted/increased. Decision was taken in the early years to give the internal units within TFL the opportunity to undertake a lot of the work (Management, system integration, testing & implementation), whist separately tendering some major elements. There seems to have been a skills/resource shortage/focus. So at this stage appears little commercial leverage and lessons perhaps learnt for future similar work for other fleets.

 

[Geogregor]

So basically by the time they finish refurbishment (at the current rate some time in the 2040s) we can go straight to procuring replacement

 

[boiledbeans2]

So basically by the time they finish refurbishment (at the current rate some time in the 2040s) we can go straight to procuring replacement

That seems to be the plan for the Bakerloo line RVAR project...

 

[Nym]

That seems to be the plan for the Bakerloo line RVAR project...

You imply Bakerloo RVAR has a plan?

 

[boiledbeans2]

You imply Bakerloo RVAR has a plan?

Yeah, the Bakerloo RVAR project are taking plans/inspiration from CLIP and vice-versa.

 

[A60stock]

Any particular reason for that do you know? Cost or are they just much less heavily used?

The lack of ATO means they fail less, it's very difficult to get them out to do the work, and combined with the coming mountain of spares, it's just decided to not be needed.

Are we saying that these trains will never receive interior DMIs or modifications? How can tfl get away with these not being RVAR compliant forever?

 

[bramling]

Are we saying that these trains will never receive interior DMIs or modifications? How can tfl get away with these not being RVAR compliant forever?

Governmental organisations can do whatever they want within reason. Providing someone is happy to keep granting exemptions then the situation can last forever if necessary. Realistically no politician is going to essentially close a line down for want of a signature on a piece of paper, though saying that the last government might have done it if it allowed them to score political points for example against the mayor.

Yeah, the Bakerloo RVAR project are taking plans/inspiration from CLIP and vice-versa.

Both are examples where TFL have buried their head in the sand for many many years. Something should have been done about the 92 stock 15 or more years ago. Passengers have suffered for many years due to the poor availability and reliability of the stock.

 

[D365]

Are we saying that these trains will never receive interior DMIs or modifications? How can tfl get away with these not being RVAR compliant forever?

Without trying to sound facetious… is the lack of a DMI on the Waterloo & City, with its two stations, really a significant issue?

 

[Goldfish62]

Without trying to sound facetious… is the lack of a DMI on the Waterloo & City, with its two stations, really a significant issue?

Indeed. It's not possible to end up on the wrong train or miss your stop so I'd have thought an exemption could be applied for for this line.

 

[Nym]

Without trying to sound facetious… is the lack of a DMI on the Waterloo & City, with its two stations, really a significant issue?

That is actually part of the justification for RVAR exemption on the route.
A lot of other RVAR exemptions also apply to 1992TS on the Central Line, such as seat height (priority seats) grab pole diameters, etc.

RVAR 2011 is a lot more that just, "Destination displays and wheelchair bays".

Another justification to be used is the lack of accessibility of the platforms at both ends, although the wheelchair bays are not that hard to fit to a 1992TS unit, the design is done in alignment with the new DTS (Data Transmission System) creating space and is designed for B-C units, of which the W&C line has none, (They're all E-F units, which are based on A-B units). (At least this is as was when being worked on by the TfL sponsors of the time). The engineering solution was to fit a wheelchair bay to each B Car of an A-B unit so there would always be a wheelchair bay in the Car 2 and Car 7 positions regardless of the formation of units.

Although the C&OP Engineering team running CLIP at the time also wanted (prior to the decision to let all of CLIP out as work packages rather than manage the project engineering in house) to re-form 1992TS into four car units, removing all of the B Position auto couplers and replacing with bar couplers and jumpers. That had been being pushed for a long time by the proposed main PE for the project and a couple of other engineers on team, but never managed to get the capital spend sorted even with a highly positive BCR and significant benefits to CLIP.

Still, we also worked out how to re-build some 1972/1967Mk.2 hybrid units up to run the W&C (yes, it was complicated, but very very possible) and free up some E-F units to run up on the Central instead of the W&C.

C&OP = Capacity and Optimisation Portfolio, rebranded from Capacity and Optimisation Programme, rebranded from Deep Tube Programmes, rebranded from Legacy Rolling Stock, rebranded from Victoria Line Upgrade. (I'm sure I missed one or two out of there)

 

[boiledbeans2]

[...]
Although the C&OP Engineering team running CLIP at the time also wanted (prior to the decision to let all of CLIP out as work packages rather than manage the project engineering in house) to re-form 1992TS into four car units, removing all of the B Position auto couplers and replacing with bar couplers and jumpers. That had been being pushed for a long time by the proposed main PE for the project and a couple of other engineers on team, but never managed to get the capital spend sorted even with a highly positive BCR and significant benefits to CLIP.
[...]

Interesting. What was the benefit to permanently converting to a 4-car unit? Reduced maintenance because the autocoupler has been removed?

 

[Nym]

Interesting. What was the benefit to permanently converting to a 4-car unit? Reduced maintenance because the autocoupler has been removed?

The primary benefit was the removal of 74% of the auto couplers, which are relatively expensive to maintain compared with bar couplers.

When CLIP came along, there were also benefits in increasing the length of the data network to 4 cars, and a lot less auto couplers to either re-pin for either Ethernet or MVB/WTB, or whatever it was (both were on the cards back then) to support the new data transmission network.

Other fringe benefits came in the form of better standards compliance for new equipment to be fitted, but unless you have access to the LU standards suite of the time, it wouldn't make any sense.

 

[boiledbeans2]

The primary benefit was the removal of 74% of the auto couplers, which are relatively expensive to maintain compared with bar couplers.

When CLIP came along, there were also benefits in increasing the length of the data network to 4 cars, and a lot less auto couplers to either re-pin for either Ethernet or MVB/WTB, or whatever it was (both were on the cards back then) to support the new data transmission network.

Other fringe benefits came in the form of better standards compliance for new equipment to be fitted, but unless you have access to the LU standards suite of the time, it wouldn't make any sense.

Interesting indeed. Why were the 1992ts even designed as 2-car units in the first place, with some units without cabs? Why not make them 4-car units, some single ended and some double ended like the 1973ts?

The only other recent precedent I can think of is the C stock, with DM coupled to T. However, that allowed flexibility as all units had cabs. Did the C stock ever run as a 4-car train: DM+T+T+DM? Otherwise, the C stock could have been a 3-car unit.

 

[starlight73]

6 car units maybe?

 

[Nym]

Interesting indeed. Why were the 1992ts even designed as 2-car units in the first place, with some units without cabs? Why not make them 4-car units, some single ended and some double ended like the 1973ts?

The only other recent precedent I can think of is the C stock, with DM coupled to T. However, that allowed flexibility as all units had cabs. Did the C stock ever run as a 4-car train: DM+T+T+DM? Otherwise, the C stock could have been a 3-car unit.

C69/77 stock was designed to be able to cover the Circle Line, East London Line and Met Line so called for 6, 4 and 8 car formations respectively.

1992TS was 2 car for "Operational Flexibility" for maintenance, but there was just one small problem with the plan, in the words of Blackadder, "It was B******".

 

[rebmcr]

The primary benefit was the removal of 74% of the auto couplers, which are relatively expensive to maintain compared with bar couplers.

Was there any scope for deduplication of equipment?

Is it safe to assume that every 2-car unit has its own independent reservoir & compressor, for example?