Blindtraveler
Established Member
To wordy
But still very good
But still very good
induction motors have been around for decades and upgraded over time. Its likely got devloped induction motors, developed meaning up to date with modern day standards.I did examine the Bombardier Mitrac system before posting as it was mentioned earlier in this thread.
But the Bombardier Mitrac seems to be a very generic name for its propulsion system and includes both asynchronous (induction) motors and the newer PMSMs.
For example, in this conference publication, on page 13, Bombardier lists the MITRAC TM 3700F as an "air cooled, three phase asynchronous motor"
While in this presentation, Bombardier explains their new (at that time) MITRAC PM motors, with slide 9 listing some ongoing projects (at that time).
From wiki, the S stock uses asynchronous (induction) motors. However, they are already more than 10 years old, so I was wondering if the 1992 stock uses the newer PMSM technology.
Its that and then some. It has a destinct noise seperate from both electrostars amd S stock. It funnily enough, still sounds like a washing machine but a modern one. At least it sounds like mine. The deep groaning sounds it makes.Although it must be said that it doesn't sound a bit like the 2009 stock (the sound of which I usually describe as like an Electrostar on steroids). It is an almost identical sound to the S Stock taking off though.
Thats not exactly true. If they have new bogies and motors then it will likely be secure. The 92 stock derailed partly because it had poorly fitted motors mounted to the wheel axle. At least thats what was said. Modern trains have frame mounted bogies for the most part and the central line derailment is unlikely to happen again on given modern understanding of issues like this. At least they could be allowed to run at those speeds on the suburban side of the routeBecause the trains have a habit of shaking themselves apart. 100kph running was highlighted as one of the things leading to the Chancery Lane derailment motor working itself loose and falling off.
The accident at Chancery Lane occurred because the frame mounted motor came away from its bogie frame mount and fell on the track. The train ran over it and derailed. The frame to motor mount design wasn't fit for purpose and on analysis, it was found that the bogie fram mounting wasn't either. Some had started to crack after just 10 years service. As a result, LU replaced all the bogie frames and this included a new way of mouning the motors to the frame. The motor mount arrangement has been carried over to the new motors.Thats not exactly true. If they have new bogies and motors then it will likely be secure. The 92 stock derailed partly because it had poorly fitted motors mounted to the wheel axle. At least thats what was said. Modern trains have frame mounted bogies for the most part and the central line derailment is unlikely to happen again on given modern understanding of issues like this. At least they could be allowed to run at those speeds on the suburban side of the route
Ah okay, i assumed they were also axle mounted. But i got my info mixed up. But yeah this makes sense. The motor is likely going to be fine at 60mph on the right length of track . Otherwise you would never have s stock or 96 stock trains going near their max speedThe accident at Chancery Lane occurred because the frame mounted motor came away from its bogie frame mount and fell on the track. The train ran over it and derailed. The frame to motor mount design wasn't fit for purpose and on analysis, it was found that the bogie fram mounting wasn't either. Some had started to crack after just 10 years service. As a result, LU replaced all the bogie frames and this included a new way of mouning the motors to the frame. The motor mount arrangement has been carried over to the new motors.
The last LU fleet with 'wheel axle' mounted motors (which are also supported on the bogie frame) was the 1983 tube stock and (for completeness) the 4-car 1986 tube stock Blue train.
Lets see. ;^) but rumours do be rumouringThere's been talk of 100kph running once every train has been refurbished but nothing has been confirmed
Am I right in saying the Kawasaki bogies were fully replaced in late 2012/2013 ?Restoring 100km/h was being discussed in the project offices even so back as far as the Kawasaki bogies being replaced, but the motors are pretty much the last “weak” link stopping it
Sounds right, but I’ve definately slept since then so don’t hold me to itAm I right in saying the Kawasaki bogies were fully replaced in late 2012/2013 ?
This seems to be the equivalent of the SWR Class 701 introduction.Think this can win the award of the most extensive & delayed refurbishment project on LU !
Yeah the LED lighting on 1992TS for CLIP is very different.There's one unit running around with LED lighting (or at least I think so) fitted around 2009 as apart of a trial.
It blows my mind we're waiting till December for just for the second train.
Given the stated 10 week refurbishment time I had presumed we'd be getting 2 trains in and out roughly every 2.5 months, not 1 in 8 months!
Erm. Nope.
CLIP was delivered by COP which is part of capital programmes.
HOPL was delivered by COO the operations side.
Very few staff shared between these on the engineering side, other than those part of “TfL Engineering”.
CLIP was late long before COVID.
And yes we did try and get HOPL (Heavy Overhaul Programme Lift) renamed to Central Line Overhaul Programme.
To go with Bakerloo Line Improvement Programme.