1992 stock Refurbishment?

[Silent]

Thinking about it the ventilation area could've been redesigned so where the vent grill is could fit more posters and a display and the train could've retained the original window size.

The short answer is that virtually everything is wrong with the 92 stock. They were designed and built at a time when technology was rapidly advancing, so they were essentially pioneers in many aspects. It is also said that they were somewhat designed down to a price by a builder with no prior experience of building Tube trains. The bodyshells are deteriorating, the electronics are obsolete and deteriorating, the traction packages weren’t quite up to the job (they were the first and only application of a DC motor to a “high performance” ATO application), and on top of that they have been quite intensively worked.

If you look at the three 1990s stocks, the 96 and 95 stocks are significantly refined over the 92 stock, despite being only a few years later. The 95 stock is itself a refinement over the 96 stock, which is starting to show now as the 96 stock is also beginning to run in to issues.

The 83 stock had issues as well, though in their case more surprising given the D stock was well regarded. Most of the 83 stock issue was the single-leaf door design blunder, but they had some technical issues as well. ISTR the auxiliary system was troublesome, though I daresay had the trains had a long-term future then this might have been dealt with.

Recently I have been wondering if certain lines such as the Central Line are tougher on their rolling stock than other lines? The former stock was the 62ts that got replaced after only 30 years in comparison to the 59ts or 38ts that I hear worked on Bakerloo and Northern lines and lasted on the tube for 40 to 50 years.

 

[Russel]

Thinking about it the ventilation area could've been redesigned so where the vent grill is could fit more posters and a display and the train could've retained the original window size.



Recently I have been wondering if certain lines such as the Central Line are tougher on their rolling stock than other lines? The former stock was the 62ts that got replaced after only 30 years in comparison to the 59ts or 38ts that I hear worked on Bakerloo and Northern lines and lasted on the tube for 40 to 50 years.

Quite possibly, it would make sense, the longest line, intensive timetable, overcrowding most of the day resulting in the stock being worked harder than on other lines?

 

[D7666]

I have posted this before.

First ATO driving is far more aggressive than non ATO.

Manual driving 62TS is chalk and cheese comparing with 92TS ATO. 62TS would not have lasted 5 minutes the way ATO drives 92TS.

92TS has already exceeded is fatigue design life.

This is not a design fault. The day long basic service is some more than 50% higher than anticipated when 92TS was new, the high peak is now 3 hours not 1 hour (so totals nearly one third of the day), train loadings are far higher all day every day than 30 years ago when specced, and we have suburban traffic nodes like Stratford and ShephersBush/WhiteCity also far far in excess of 30 years ago, and on top of that we have night tube. 92TS does many many more miles and hours loaded in traffic than was ever planned. Then do all this with aggressive ATO. The original bogies were clapped out and replaced not because they were poor design but because they reached fatigue limit and BER. The bodies have passed design fatigue limit but have been (so far) not BER but repairable. The DC motors were rewound and reground 10-12 years ago but they too now reached their limit and at BER. Retractioning masks that.

What one sees when one starts rambling about seat moquette and locations of vent grilles and posters so in is total insignificance with the work they need.

What they really need is replacement.

 

[Goldfish62]

I have posted this before.

First ATO driving is far more aggressive than non ATO.

Manual driving 62TS is chalk and cheese comparing with 92TS ATO. 62TS would not have lasted 5 minutes the way ATO drives 92TS.

92TS has already exceeded is fatigue design life.

This is not a design fault. The day long basic service is some more than 50% higher than anticipated when 92TS was new, the high peak is now 3 hours not 1 hour (so totals nearly one third of the day), train loadings are far higher all day every day than 30 years ago when specced, and we have suburban traffic nodes like Stratford and ShephersBush/WhiteCity also far far in excess of 30 years ago, and on top of that we have night tube. 92TS does many many more miles and hours loaded in traffic than was ever planned. Then do all this with aggressive ATO. The original bogies were clapped out and replaced not because they were poor design but because they reached fatigue limit and BER. The bodies have passed design fatigue limit but have been (so far) not BER but repairable. The DC motors were rewound and reground 10-12 years ago but they too now reached their limit and at BER. Retractioning masks that.

What one sees when one starts rambling about seat moquette and locations of vent grilles and posters so in is total insignificance with the work they need.

What they really need is replacement.

Interesting and agree.

The ATO really is so aggressive on the trains, noticeably more so than other stock and is a characteristic of travelling on the Central line. Is the general wear and stress why it's been toned down on subsequent conversions?

 

[bluegoblin7]

The Central line's ATO is generally less aggressive than that on the Jubilee and Northern lines - indeed, significant fatigue cracks are starting to appear on both fleets, with some long term stopped 96 stock in consequence. This fleet in particular is becoming more unreliable with a pressing need for replacement or remedial work - and it isn't the traction package.

My learned colleague D7666 has explained many of the creeping fatigue issues around a number of LUL fleets, much of it stemming back to the PPP days and the cancellation or delay of other fleet replacement programmes.

Fleets like the 72 and 92 stocks may look tired to a user, but the works they've had done in recent years and the extension on their working life should not be underestimated. The structural work on the 72TS, in particular, has added a lot of time to the fleet.

 

[Goldfish62]

The Central line's ATO is generally less aggressive than that on the Jubilee and Northern lines - indeed, significant fatigue cracks are starting to appear on both fleets, with some long term stopped 96 stock in consequence. This fleet in particular is becoming more unreliable with a pressing need for replacement or remedial work - and it isn't the traction package.

I'm aware of the issues with the 96 stock but I'm genuinely surprised you say the 92 stock has less aggressive ATO. Certainly my impression has always been if I want a thrill ride the Central line is the place to go!

 

[bluegoblin7]

Quite simply, the Central line is capable of coasting and anything Seltrac-based isn't.

 

[Goldfish62]

Quite simply, the Central line is capable of coasting and anything Seltrac-based isn't.

Ah right, I can understand the difference that must make.

 

[D7666]

I've been off the Central a while now and agree that while 92TS and their control system has the capability to do ATO coasting, as far as I am aware this function is not used now. Timetables will not work if they turn on the coasting function, or, at least, would not have worked in the period I was involved, and if anything today's timetables are even more demanding. I am however out of touch with Centrally things and been away from it 7 years now. I know a person to ask, <cough> I mean The Person to ask, and will try and remember to do so.

95TS and 96TS ATO certainly is aggressive; I'd not like to say how they directly compare with 92TS, but, one of the reasons for the 92TS "thrill ride", as it was termed upthread, is the way the Central London Railway was constructed with upgrades into stations and downgrades out; the downgrade really assist with acceleration so you perceive it. Actually, to a certain extent, the upgrade into stations works against today's train running as timetables are so demanding 92TS is still motoring into platforms past the station tailwall then do all out ATO service braking. Using the up grade to slow the train, the original idea, slows the train too early and the timetable would not work.

Another reason, possibly, for not perceiving 95/96TS as aggressive is on 92TS all axles are motored, 95/96TS is not, if you are not in a motor coach you are not getting all the sound effects.

I hope somebody in time will have the sense to save them for posterity, but the original CAD printouts of the 92TS point to point running curves were still in existence - and in use - and one of them had a revision issue with my manual updates where we twiddled something. The twiddle - not designed by me - I merely added it - gained only about 1.2 seconds on one inter station run; this sounds trivial, but, if you run (say) 28 TPH, you claw back 33 seconds of white space per hour; and that sort of thing begins to gain more headway paths per hour; repeat in a small number of locations and increase your capacity. However, the downside these days is such gains tend to be offset by longer station dwell times due to passenger numbers, and places like Bond Street were suffering badly from this (although may have changed since Eliz line appeared).

 

[Recessio]

The Central line's ATO is generally less aggressive than that on the Jubilee and Northern lines - indeed, significant fatigue cracks are starting to appear on both fleets, with some long term stopped 96 stock in consequence. This fleet in particular is becoming more unreliable with a pressing need for replacement or remedial work - and it isn't the traction package.

My learned colleague D7666 has explained many of the creeping fatigue issues around a number of LUL fleets, much of it stemming back to the PPP days and the cancellation or delay of other fleet replacement programmes.

Fleets like the 72 and 92 stocks may look tired to a user, but the works they've had done in recent years and the extension on their working life should not be underestimated. The structural work on the 72TS, in particular, has added a lot of time to the fleet.

Really informative post, thank you. Regarding the life-extending structural work to the 72TS, is there a chance of doing something similar to the 95/96? Or do these have more deep-seated problems that will ultimately mean earlier replacement?

 

[Silent]

I’ve read an article that 96ts is getting structural work done to it. I think because of the cracks that were found in the couplers back in 2019.

 

[Nym]

Really informative post, thank you. Regarding the life-extending structural work to the 72TS, is there a chance of doing something similar to the 95/96? Or do these have more deep-seated problems that will ultimately mean earlier replacement?

That would be the lack of willingness from TLL to spend the money on maintenance where it's actually needed.

The recent "overhaul" (around 6 years ago now) did nothing for the structure of the units, they were "overhauled" in a shed with no pits so if welding was needed, it needed four moves to do it properly, which of course, there wasn't time for, so in many cases it just didn't get done.
There's then been recent 'structural' work tendered, where TfL are insistent on not doing welding to repair the structural cracks.

Back in the days on the 1972TS and 1992TS, each unit had continuous monitoring of structural cracks, and when they got to a point needing repair, they were repaired. The recent work to 1972TS included a lot of replacement of parts that could not be inspected (and frankly some of them just weren't there any more) and a full replacement of the majority of the worst areas for cracking. It was the TfL "Design Team" who wanted the new flooring and seat covers to make it look like something was done.

This kind of depth of work, to my knowledge has never been done on a TLL fleet, be it 1973 or 1996TS. (1995TS is under a maintenance contract by Alstom so not maintained by TLL or JNP Residuary).

TLL = Tube Line Ltd.
JNP = Jubilee Northern Piccadilly.

And before someone jumps in to say "It's all one TfL now". That's as may be, but 3 years after TLL and fMR we're brought together, TLL culture very much continued in the same methods.

I’ve read an article that 96ts is getting structural work done to it. I think because of the cracks that were found in the couplers back in 2019.

Goes much deeper than the couplers, and the cracks were found back in 2017 during the work in TFOS when they repainted the interiors. (And did a lot of other things that caused us a lot of pain due to 'issues'.)

 

[D7666]

And before someone jumps in to say "It's all one TfL now". That's as may be, but 3 years after TLL and fMR we're brought together, TLL culture very much continued in the same methods.

Tell me about it !!!!!

 

[Whiggism]

This is quite an interesting announcement considering it will never be used, and I am sure Ongar closed on the 30 September 1994 rather than March?

 

[xtmw]

Yes it did. Whoever was in charge of creating the scripts for the announcer system didn't do enough research !

 

[Russel]

This is quite an interesting announcement considering it will never be used, and I am sure Ongar closed on the 30 September 1994 rather than March?

Can I ask what the point of that announcement is?

 

[ballas]

Can I ask what the point of that announcement is?

There is no point in it, hence why it is being removed.

 

[Nym]

Or kept it in because it's a laugh?

Yes it did. Whoever was in charge of creating the scripts for the announcer system didn't do enough research

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Speaking of lively and unforgiving ATO and the immense stress it puts the traction motors, bogies and couplers on, I have noticed that an increasing number of 1995TS are receiving black tape around the front windscreens either side of the Destination Indicator, does anybody know if this is due to water ingress (akin to the 92s at car ends) or weld failures due to stress.

 

[xtmw]

I've also noticed that some trains have sluggish acceleration, the braking was fine but you couldn't really hear the motors in the car putting in any effort. The others cars were motoring fine but the acceleration seemed about 50%.

 

[LUYMun]

If the overhaul is expected to take much longer than anticipated, and the end is not in sight for the small, modified fleet, then why wouldn't TfL be inclined to can the project and let the 92TS run with DC motors until their expected withdrawal a decade from now? It'd be a waste of time, effort and money to sink the costs on a refurbishment programme that will end up not fulfilling its extended life expectancy - we've seen this before with the D78 Stock.

 

[bramling]

If the overhaul is expected to take much longer than anticipated, and the end is not in sight for the small, modified fleet, then why wouldn't TfL be inclined to can the project and let the 92TS run with DC motors until their expected withdrawal a decade from now? It'd be a waste of time, effort and money to sink the costs on a refurbishment programme that will end up not fulfilling its extended life expectancy - we've seen this before with the D78 Stock.

It isn’t just the motors. There are issues galore with the trains, and even the bodyshells are in a dire state. Add to that they fail to meet accessibility requirements. I’m not sure it’s feasible to try and let them see out another decade in their current state - I reckon things could get to a point where the line could barely be able to function.

One wonders if, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been possible to push the Piccadilly fleet replacement out by another few years and replace the Central fleet instead. But this introduces the complication that you then have to make the new fleet work with the Central Line’s 1990s signalling, which has obsolescence issues of its own. Likewise the 73 stock is now nearly 50 years old, expecting them to last reliably to 60 could well be pushing luck. And of course an indirect consequence would likely be the Bakerloo fleet having to last even longer.

 

[Thirteen]

It isn’t just the motors. There are issues galore with the trains, and even the bodyshells are in a dire state. Add to that they fail to meet accessibility requirements. I’m not sure it’s feasible to try and let them see out another decade in their current state - I reckon things could get to a point where the line could barely be able to function.

One wonders if, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been possible to push the Piccadilly fleet replacement out by another few years and replace the Central fleet instead. But this introduces the complication that you then have to make the new fleet work with the Central Line’s 1990s signalling, which has obsolescence issues of its own. Likewise the 73 stock is now nearly 50 years old, expecting them to last reliably to 60 could well be pushing luck. And of course an indirect consequence would likely be the Bakerloo fleet having to last even longer.

I think delaying the Piccadily fleet would have been pushing already life expired trains to their limits, the Bakerloo can just about cope but there's going to a point where it needs to be replaced, we saw on the Island Line how difficult it was to keep the Class 483s going.

If any of the Mayoral candidates want to have a voter winner, it would be ordering new replacement stock for Bakerloo, Central and W&C within the first year of their tenure.

 

[A60stock]

If the overhaul is expected to take much longer than anticipated, and the end is not in sight for the small, modified fleet, then why wouldn't TfL be inclined to can the project and let the 92TS run with DC motors until their expected withdrawal a decade from now? It'd be a waste of time, effort and money to sink the costs on a refurbishment programme that will end up not fulfilling its extended life expectancy - we've seen this before with the D78 Stock.I

I believe the D78 refurbishment was purely cosmetic and had very little done from a performance point of view. I don't think anything was done under the cars i.e traction packages/motors (perhaps refurbished at most). So essentially, the mechanics of the train below the sole bar were essentially operating as original for 37 years! Roughly around the expected life span for an EMU.

In comparison, it seems that the 92ts refurbishment is far heavier and transformational underneath, and less so cosmetic.

 

[100andthirty]

The only significant change under the solebar of D stock was new bogie frames in the late '90s/early2000s.

 

[Nym]

I believe the D78 refurbishment was purely cosmetic and had very little done from a performance point of view. I don't think anything was done under the cars i.e traction packages/motors (perhaps refurbished at most). So essentially, the mechanics of the train below the sole bar were essentially operating as original for 37 years! Roughly around the expected life span for an EMU.

In comparison, it seems that the 92ts refurbishment is far heavier and transformational underneath, and less so cosmetic.

With of course...

New Static Converters
New Cab Air Conditioning
Replacement "F" Jumpers
New "A" Jumpers
New PIS
New CCTV

...

Hardly "Cosmetic Only".

Oh and the new bogie frames that came after Whitechapel.

 

[MCR247]

Oh and the new bogie frames that came after Whitechapel.

What happened at Whitechapel? I did try Google but maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough!

 

[Nym]

What happened at Whitechapel? I did try Google but maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough!

Derailment over the trailing points on a long term stopper being send from Upminster to Ealing if my memory serves correctly.

 

[MCR247]

Derailment over the trailing points on a long term stopper being send from Upminster to Ealing if my memory serves correctly.

Thanks

 

[Basil Jet]

I believe the D78 refurbishment was purely cosmetic and had very little done from a performance point of view. I don't think anything was done under the cars i.e traction packages/motors (perhaps refurbished at most). So essentially, the mechanics of the train below the sole bar were essentially operating as original for 37 years! Roughly around the expected life span for an EMU.

Although Adrian Shooter said that they had either new bogies or new wheel sets (I can't remember which) and this was a major reason why Vivarail purchased them (or existed).