Yes I believe more and more trains have their beeper speakers fitted directly on their doors.
-
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
NSEWonderer
Established Member
I don't believe the red circular thing next to the door is a speaker.
Correction: Just seen a photo close up from a video of Geoffs. Does indeed show the speaker.
Last edited:
trentbartonfan
Member
My guess is late summer of this year, but it could vary depending on how the other stages go.
Fazaar1889
Member
Curious, how long will these trains be in service for? 50 years? What's the official estimate and what's the realistic estimate?
bluegoblin7
Established Member
Metro stock generally has a projected lifespan of 35-40 years, with a significant mid-life overhaul/refurbishment, intended to include things like traction electronics, signalling systems etc.
This hasn’t really changed in the best part of 100 years; these were always the projected life spans of the legacy stocks too, and that some have lasted over a decade longer isn’t cause for celebration.
I think any concern over the age profile of the fleet is perhaps a little premature.
This hasn’t really changed in the best part of 100 years; these were always the projected life spans of the legacy stocks too, and that some have lasted over a decade longer isn’t cause for celebration.
I think any concern over the age profile of the fleet is perhaps a little premature.
Trainbike46
Established Member
TfL has stated they aim for these trains to last around 50 years - which is more or less what their predecessors achieved
Fazaar1889
Member
Fair enough thanks!
bluegoblin7
Established Member
Source?
The first word of the post…
100andthirty
Member
The specified life of a train is the value 'plugged in' to various design methods together with various assumed operating and interface parameters to assess the mechanical design. The actual life span depends on the real conditions which will inevitably vary from those specified over time. Then there's the electronics and other systems. These will be lucky to have a 20 year life, often relying on integrated circuit/ microprossesser designs that might dissappear from the market with little notice. Sometimes sub suppliers disappear taking critical intellectual property with them.
The net result is that someone in TfL might forecast a life but that's likely to be as reliable as forecasting the football results next week.
In reality, engineers and asset managers will keep the train performance and costs under review and will start thinking about planning refurbishment in about 2040 and planning end of life or life extension in about 2055. None of the influential people in TfL today will still be in post for either date.
In summary forecasting the life of a new fleet is more like clairvoyance than forecasting.
The net result is that someone in TfL might forecast a life but that's likely to be as reliable as forecasting the football results next week.
In reality, engineers and asset managers will keep the train performance and costs under review and will start thinking about planning refurbishment in about 2040 and planning end of life or life extension in about 2055. None of the influential people in TfL today will still be in post for either date.
In summary forecasting the life of a new fleet is more like clairvoyance than forecasting.
Trainbike46
Established Member
There's many available you could find with a simple google source, but an example (chosen mostly at random) is the below:
According to LU's parent Transport for London, the train procurement offers a 'unique opportunity to develop an iconic design for a new generation of tube trains for service in London for the next 50 years'.
Of course, if you were looking for how long the 1973 stock will last, we won't know for sure until the final one leaves service but I think it is obvious it will be around 50 years
bluegoblin7
Established Member
“a new generation of Tube trains” does not mean a single stock - given 2024TS derivatives are likely to see use as both Bakerloo and Central replacement, it refers to the overall type of train rather than the stock themselves.
As I mentioned, the 24TS specifically, in line with other metro stocks, have a projected life span of 35-40 years.
It’s not unreasonable to ask for sources when someone is making an otherwise unsubstantiated claim. News agencies are also not considered to be primary sources, and neither TfL nor Siemens’s fact sheets commit to the number you’ve given.
My own sources, before you ask, are internal.
TfL’s main page on PLU does not give any lifespan estimate.
As I mentioned, the 24TS specifically, in line with other metro stocks, have a projected life span of 35-40 years.
It’s not unreasonable to ask for sources when someone is making an otherwise unsubstantiated claim. News agencies are also not considered to be primary sources, and neither TfL nor Siemens’s fact sheets commit to the number you’ve given.
My own sources, before you ask, are internal.
Simply stating that someone said something is not a source. I could say that Sadiq Khan has stated that everyone named Bob will be paid £500 to travel on the fifth Tuesday of the month, it doesn’t make it true.
TfL’s main page on PLU does not give any lifespan estimate.
100andthirty
Member
Drawing an analogy, the current Bakerloo trains are last of the 1967 tube stock generation. London Transport might have said that the 1967 tube stock was the first of a generation of tube trains that might last 60 years.
Of course London Transport wouldn't have said that, as at the time, the nominal train design life was 30 years. Also the organisation didn't go in for what I might politely call 'flowery claptrap'.
Lives of 36 years and 40 years were yet to come.
Of course London Transport wouldn't have said that, as at the time, the nominal train design life was 30 years. Also the organisation didn't go in for what I might politely call 'flowery claptrap'.
Lives of 36 years and 40 years were yet to come.
Did the predecessors achieve it because relatively they are mechanically or electronically simpler compared to newer stock and they used parts that were also probably refined over decades. I've heard that the 67/72 stock might have similar motors to the ones used on the 38 stock, I'm no expert though.
I know it isn't the same as 92 stock, but does the speed of advancement and more complex electronics in newer trains make them more prone to becoming life expired in a bit less time?
Some thoughts:
1) When TFL started outsourcing the design of trains the design life would have been included in the requirements specification.
2) The difference between the (whole) train expected useful life & the expected life of replaceable parts
3) There are subtle differences between 'Life Expired' (worn out & needing replacement/overhaul), 'Obsolete' (Issues with support/repairs/spares) and 'Useful life' (Cost and reliability factors come to prevalence)
4) Technology used in the various systems on the train moves on and hence obsolescence, this is prevalent in computer/electronics based systems but perhaps will also occur in Lighting, Air conditioning, speakers, switches etc.
5) We are entering the age where manufacturing technics and "compactness" means it is impractical/uneconomic to overhaul/repair, so new manufacture required
Hopefully during the design phase & now that we have the first 24 stock train - the review against the above can be completed so any major issues can be referred back to supplier and secondly TFL can start shaping up the likely maintenance/overhaul/refurb/retrofit plan and costs for the "life" of this train.
1) When TFL started outsourcing the design of trains the design life would have been included in the requirements specification.
2) The difference between the (whole) train expected useful life & the expected life of replaceable parts
3) There are subtle differences between 'Life Expired' (worn out & needing replacement/overhaul), 'Obsolete' (Issues with support/repairs/spares) and 'Useful life' (Cost and reliability factors come to prevalence)
4) Technology used in the various systems on the train moves on and hence obsolescence, this is prevalent in computer/electronics based systems but perhaps will also occur in Lighting, Air conditioning, speakers, switches etc.
5) We are entering the age where manufacturing technics and "compactness" means it is impractical/uneconomic to overhaul/repair, so new manufacture required
Hopefully during the design phase & now that we have the first 24 stock train - the review against the above can be completed so any major issues can be referred back to supplier and secondly TFL can start shaping up the likely maintenance/overhaul/refurb/retrofit plan and costs for the "life" of this train.
Nym
Established Member
One also needs to consider along with the contracting out of the design, closed systems start being installed where LT/MR/LU/TfL don't have access and knowledge of what's installed on the units.
So when you have for example a control relay or control relay box, you know what all the inputs and outputs are, and can therefore replicate the function and form with a more modern piece of equipment without too much effort (usually!).
Compare that with chunks of electronics where the communications network between them is sold as a system, and particularly before the more contemporary network definitions and standards have come in such as MVB (Multi-Vehicle Bus) WTB (Wired Train Bus) and ECN (Ethernet Communications Network). Combined with the drive to have integrated and connected systems within the cabs of trains, and the drive towards reduced harnessing costs, meaning you need to have a single (or two) combined ECN or MVB network. Now since this is only being really used in the last 10 years or so, one hopes these will be more maintainable as they're based around EN series standards, but thanks to the ever increasing complexity of software and integration into single networks, I very much doubt it.
Where as if you look at 2000s designed units, where multi-vendor systems were defined, you have say, 9 sets of communications networks based on various standards of the last 10 years when designed, not the best thing. But as they're separate systems, you can replace one system at a time, and as they're multi-vendor, the interfaces between the systems are very well defined in ICD type documents. eg. a CCTV system that passes images into a cab, but is a separate vendor from the cab monitor system and OPO CCTV, the signals between the equipment are defined as something like CVBS signals, which as very easy to replicate in a replacement system module. That isn't something I've been seeing more recently, unless, the asset custodian takes ownership of the digital networks on the asset, which most asset custodians simply don't have the competency to manage, even if they wanted to (which due to 'min cost' pressures, they don't want to anyway.)
EDIT: OPO - One Person Operation
(Caught the undefined non-standard initialism).
So when you have for example a control relay or control relay box, you know what all the inputs and outputs are, and can therefore replicate the function and form with a more modern piece of equipment without too much effort (usually!).
Compare that with chunks of electronics where the communications network between them is sold as a system, and particularly before the more contemporary network definitions and standards have come in such as MVB (Multi-Vehicle Bus) WTB (Wired Train Bus) and ECN (Ethernet Communications Network). Combined with the drive to have integrated and connected systems within the cabs of trains, and the drive towards reduced harnessing costs, meaning you need to have a single (or two) combined ECN or MVB network. Now since this is only being really used in the last 10 years or so, one hopes these will be more maintainable as they're based around EN series standards, but thanks to the ever increasing complexity of software and integration into single networks, I very much doubt it.
Where as if you look at 2000s designed units, where multi-vendor systems were defined, you have say, 9 sets of communications networks based on various standards of the last 10 years when designed, not the best thing. But as they're separate systems, you can replace one system at a time, and as they're multi-vendor, the interfaces between the systems are very well defined in ICD type documents. eg. a CCTV system that passes images into a cab, but is a separate vendor from the cab monitor system and OPO CCTV, the signals between the equipment are defined as something like CVBS signals, which as very easy to replicate in a replacement system module. That isn't something I've been seeing more recently, unless, the asset custodian takes ownership of the digital networks on the asset, which most asset custodians simply don't have the competency to manage, even if they wanted to (which due to 'min cost' pressures, they don't want to anyway.)
EDIT: OPO - One Person Operation
(Caught the undefined non-standard initialism).
Trainbike46
Established Member
I initially heard the 50 years in a video released by TfL years ago, and I can no longer find it, which is why I decided to cite a secondary source (news article) stating TfL said they were aiming for around 50 years. The article is about the 24TS specifically.
If you have more reliable internal sources, why ask me for a source rather than just state your own internal TfL/Siemens/someone else sources state 35-40 years (which I would agree is a rather normal lifespan for a train in many countries)?
OneTrackMinded
Member
Noticed this little nub thing on the right side of the 2024 stock, only present on the delivered variant and 004 that just ran off the production line (not so on the one going round the test track). Any idea what it is?
Although it's slightly off-putting to the design when it's only on one side, they've done their best to hide it and it's a lot better than the large metal structure placed there in the concept images
Although it's slightly off-putting to the design when it's only on one side, they've done their best to hide it and it's a lot better than the large metal structure placed there in the concept images
Dstock7080
Established Member
Connect radio aerial or just protection cover for future mounting of the aerial?
Last edited:
Nym
Established Member
Don't they usually have folded dipoles on them? Unless "AI" has removed that from the photo?
Last set of "strange" antennas I saw was for OPO CCTV on S Stock (before the ATP ones came in).
OneTrackMinded
Member
Another clearer photo to show that isn’t the case
Also attached is what that spot looked like in the final design images
Attachments
OneTrackMinded
Member
It's a test track, very common for all sorts of odd operational scenarios to be showcased
Nym
Established Member
The hazard lamps (DFILs in LUL world) (Door Fault Indicator Lamps) are also on...
One also needs to remember that this is a Germanic perception and assessment of risk, which is very different to a British one.
One also needs to remember that this is a Germanic perception and assessment of risk, which is very different to a British one.
Archie810
Member
looks like it might be the whistle
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 7,508
That's the air conditioning the new trains will have
