-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
2024 Tube Stock (Siemens Inspiro London)
- Thread starter TRAX
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
In 2025
Isn't it very typical for deep tube stock to enter service at least a year later than the one it is named for?
The 2009 stock entered service in 2009 as did the 1972 stock in 1972 but most of the current London Underground rolling stock entered service a year or more later than their model year.
Ladder23
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,871
I’m only just catching up to all the news regarding this, very interesting!!
I for one cannot wait to see it in the flesh
I for one cannot wait to see it in the flesh
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 7,508
The 1995 stock was curiously named, as it was only ordered in 1995!
The first train entered service in 1998, making it a couple of years younger than the younger sounding 1996 stock.
The air cooling system will be a revolution at the very least.
The 1996 Stock actually sounds older as you can clearly hear it’s a GTO traction system, which is an older technology than the IGBT traction system the 1995 Stock uses.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 7,508
I meant that the "name" 1996 stock makes them sound younger than the 1995 stock trains.
The 1996s are both physically older, and an older design.
Ta I thought you were talking about actual sound
2024 stock has small windows apparently because it’s aluminium and the body shell needs to be strong. However I thought that previous stock from 1959 were built with aluminium so what makes the 24 stock need extra reinforcement apart from bogieless carriages and hvac systems.
I heard the piping only goes on the part between the doors and windows, not the pillars in between windows. It’s interesting how the 92 stock was able to get away with huge windows.
I’m no physics expert but I imagine maybe the 24’s body shell has to support itself more than prior tube stock?
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
There will also be that the current safety standards require greater end loading requirements, just like on the main line?
Nym
Established Member
1992TS doesn't have high level forced ventilation.
boiledbeans2
Member
Based on the render in post #170 of this thread, the piping does seem to go between the windows:
2024 Tube Stock (Siemens Inspiro London)
It is quite possible to change that though isn't it? Have it like Thameslink where doors open in the core, and say that on the displays and audio announcements. Then as you go further out of town you can operate them manually. It’s unlikely Piccadilly line trains will dwell for long enough for...
www.railforums.co.uk
ThameslinkUser
Member
Some would argue that to be a design flaw.
Look at 7:00Based on the render in post #170 of this thread, the piping does seem to go between the windows:
2024 Tube Stock (Siemens Inspiro London)
It is quite possible to change that though isn't it? Have it like Thameslink where doors open in the core, and say that on the displays and audio announcements. Then as you go further out of town you can operate them manually. It’s unlikely Piccadilly line trains will dwell for long enough for...
I just noticed he said traditional tube trains were steel bodied but I thought they were aluminium since the 50’s which allowed them to be unpainted???
I think the District 'R' stock was the first aluminium skinned trains which prompted the adoption of a unpainted natural silver colour to them. Then in terms of the fleet orders,* I think it was the 1959/1962 Tube stock that followed the non-paint route.
After the initial success of the unpinted District line trains, in 1961, it was decided to trial the same practice on a Routemaster bus's body, which had an aluminium monocoque construction. RM664 was put into service but there were both visibility issues on days where the sky was grey, and it was difficult to keep the bus looking clean with atmospheric pollution and street mud etc.. The body was chnaged to the standard red painted finish in 1965.
* I believe that some of the prototype designs that weren't eventually adopted for fleets were also outshopped in natural finish, e.g. the 1956TS and the 1960 Cravens used as prototype test trains for the ATC (automatic train control) ultimately used on the Victoria Line services. (much of this is from memory as I used to read the London Transport staff magazine) in the '50s/'60s.
100andthirty
Member
Pedantically - but irrlevant to 2024 tube stock......
R stock consisted of 4 variants:
R38 - steel - all driving motor cars converted from Q38 trailer cars,
R47 - steel - all non-driving motor cars,
R49 - aluminium - underframe and body. All but 6 were non-driving motor cars. They were originally red to match the Q38 driving motor cars that were used with the majority of R47. the 6 driving motor cars allowed two 8-car trains to be made up of all aluminium cars. One car was left unpainted originally, which was successful so one of the two all-aluminium trains was left unpainted
R59 - Aluminium - non-driving motor cars. More Q38 trailers were convered to R38 driving motors. R59 was unpainted from new - with the driving motor cars painted to match.
The decision was made to remove paint from the painted aluminium cars and paint the steel ones to match in the early 1960s, and it was reported complete by 1968.
R stock consisted of 4 variants:
R38 - steel - all driving motor cars converted from Q38 trailer cars,
R47 - steel - all non-driving motor cars,
R49 - aluminium - underframe and body. All but 6 were non-driving motor cars. They were originally red to match the Q38 driving motor cars that were used with the majority of R47. the 6 driving motor cars allowed two 8-car trains to be made up of all aluminium cars. One car was left unpainted originally, which was successful so one of the two all-aluminium trains was left unpainted
R59 - Aluminium - non-driving motor cars. More Q38 trailers were convered to R38 driving motors. R59 was unpainted from new - with the driving motor cars painted to match.
The decision was made to remove paint from the painted aluminium cars and paint the steel ones to match in the early 1960s, and it was reported complete by 1968.
The point that I was making is that deep tube (and SSL) trains have been aluminium skinned for some time, (their bodies have a steel frame) which gives them the required structural rigidity. It seems that the 24TS design is an all aluminium build requiring more annular bracing to compensate for the lack of car end bulkheads.
100andthirty
Member
The point about aluminium skinned with steel frame isn't true and hasn't been for a long time, except for a very limited exception
Working from personal experience......
A, C, D stocks. Structural aluminium underframe. Body made of aluminium framework with aluminium skin
1972 mk1 tube stock.....a few still on the bakerloo line.... Steel underframe Body made of steel framework with aluminium skin
1972 mk2, 1973 tube stocks. Steel underframe. Body made of aluminium framework with aluminium skin.
For these, the structural strength relies totally on the underframe
Everything since.....integral construction using wide honeycomb aluminium extrusions and other aluminium parts mostly welded together. All parts of the vehicle contribute to the structural strength. There are so many holes in bodysides......doors, windows etc......that end bulkheads are not enough to provide the required rigidity. I can't speak about the 2024 tube stock, but the ends of the earlier all aluminium tube stock don't contribute to the structural strengh. The exception is at cab ends where crashworthiness requirements have to be met.
The key structural elements making the bodies rigid are door pillers. [edit] There's also a big contribution from the rigidity of honeycomb hollow aluminium extrustions used in bodysides.
Working from personal experience......
A, C, D stocks. Structural aluminium underframe. Body made of aluminium framework with aluminium skin
1972 mk1 tube stock.....a few still on the bakerloo line.... Steel underframe Body made of steel framework with aluminium skin
1972 mk2, 1973 tube stocks. Steel underframe. Body made of aluminium framework with aluminium skin.
For these, the structural strength relies totally on the underframe
Everything since.....integral construction using wide honeycomb aluminium extrusions and other aluminium parts mostly welded together. All parts of the vehicle contribute to the structural strength. There are so many holes in bodysides......doors, windows etc......that end bulkheads are not enough to provide the required rigidity. I can't speak about the 2024 tube stock, but the ends of the earlier all aluminium tube stock don't contribute to the structural strengh. The exception is at cab ends where crashworthiness requirements have to be met.
The key structural elements making the bodies rigid are door pillers. [edit] There's also a big contribution from the rigidity of honeycomb hollow aluminium extrustions used in bodysides.
Last edited:
NorthLondoner
Member
It seems this weekend, the Piccadilly Line will be closed between Kings Cross and Cockfosters. In addition the Great Northern Hertford Loop and East Coast Main Line stopping services will also be closed. This will almost certainly place half of the Enfield and Haringey borough without a service.
Is there a reason why TfL and Network Rail couldn't coordinate with eachother to minimise disruption?
Is there a reason why TfL and Network Rail couldn't coordinate with eachother to minimise disruption?
Probably because the other services in north London are considered comprehensive enough to provide adequate options for weekend travel. Running through the area within 2 miles of the restricted routes are the High Barnet branch of the northern line, the Weaver LO line, The Suffragette LO line, even the Victoria line at Finsbury park. Then there are the multiple bus routes providing links. Co-ordination TFL and NR engineering would probably create issues elsewhere on routes that are subject to programmed interruptions.
NorthLondoner
Member
I just received an email on the weekend tube closures with no mention of the Piccadilly Line being closed between Cockfosters and Kings Cross.
The planned track closure calendar does state works are meant to take place on the weekend of the 1st and 2nd of February.
Does anyone know if the works are going ahead or was this a typo from TfL?
The planned track closure calendar does state works are meant to take place on the weekend of the 1st and 2nd of February.
Does anyone know if the works are going ahead or was this a typo from TfL?
The engineering work was cancelled at short notice, but are you looking at an out of date version of the document? Because I've just gone to that link and it doesn't mention the Piccadilly being closed this weekend. Unless they have updated it in the last 10 minutes and haven't changed the date at the top which says "Correct at date of publication Tuesday 28 January 2025."
NorthLondoner
Member
The document link was found from the Google search tab just recently. It did display the Piccadilly Line being closed between Kings Cross and Cockfosters on the 1st and 2nd of February. This does happen to me, though if you try downloading it again it should bring you to the latest version.
On another note, I'd imagine the complaints received from over the weekend has prompted TfL to back down last minute. Arsenal are playing at home this weekend, so I'd imagine travel would've been hectic if both lines are closed.
I believe it is you that is looking at an outdated version of the document and not me! What is the date at the top of the one that you can see?
NorthLondoner
Member
The date of the publication is of 24th of January