2024 Tube Stock (Siemens Inspiro London)

[Thirteen]

The LED lighting is really impressive on the front of the train.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

The LED lighting is really impressive on the front of the train.

Thought that too. I’m quite amazed really on how close the finished product is that initial concept all those years ago. When I saw it first sometime in the 2010s, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this, I thought that like most things the actual unit would look quite different because what was being proposed would be deemed “overly ambitious”, but they have delivered

 

[Nym]

Do we really need to have the fancy lights on the front when we're not supposed to be wasting money?

 

[rebmcr]

Do we really need to have the fancy lights on the front when we're not supposed to be wasting money?

As long as it's built into Siemens' bid rather than an upcost, I don't see it making a great difference on such a large order.

Maintenance is unlikely to be a burden, given the hour rating of LED sources, and if they're unreliable then again Siemens' problem

 

[Silent]

That's the air conditioning the new trains will have

Going back to pre 62 ts but with doors

Do we really need to have the fancy lights on the front when we're not supposed to be wasting money?

Led lights aren’t that expensive I think. Light technology has just evolved a lot over the last 10-20 years.

 

[Recessio]

Is there any footage of the trains in motion taken from the inside? Or just exterior shots so far.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Yes, in Geoff Marshall's video from November 2023. Skip to 2:32.

 

[Russel]

Apologies if it's been covered already, but what is the situation with the livery for the 24 stock, video linked on the previous page on the test track shows the unit having the additional blue stripe along the length of the train, but as far as I know the delivered units haven't had it?

 

[Recessio]

Yes, in Geoff Marshall's video from November 2023. Skip to 2:32.

Thank you very much

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Do we really need to have the fancy lights on the front when we're not supposed to be wasting money?

Aw come on, let us have a few nice things in life

 

[Archie810]

Do we really need to have the fancy lights on the front when we're not supposed to be wasting money?

doesn't really make any difference what the headlights look like because LEDs are really cheap anyway, so why not make the train look cool. if the train looks more attractive it will convince more people to use it over their cars. That's why bus companies in the last few years have been investing a lot into making bus travel more appealing. Its marketing.

 

[Snow1964]

Do we really need to have the fancy lights on the front when we're not supposed to be wasting money?

LED lighting is relatively cheap nowadays.

The cost of old style lights, and the risk of not being able to get replacement halogen (or similar) bulbs in 20 or 30 years must look dreadful on a cost comparison

 

[Archie810]

LED lighting is relatively cheap nowadays.

The cost of old style lights, and the risk of not being able to get replacement halogen (or similar) bulbs in 20 or 30 years must look dreadful on a cost comparison

something i find quite fun is the old BR standard BMAC lights use just standard automotive bulbs, H7s in the headlights i think

 

[D365]

There is a difference between LED lighting and railway compliant LED lighting. Not to mention the design and scrutiny costs involved in developing a one-off design. But, I’m sure this has all been factored into Siemens’ winning bid…

 

[rebmcr]

There is a difference between LED lighting and railway compliant LED lighting. Not to mention the design and scrutiny costs involved in developing a one-off design. But, I’m sure this has all been factored into Siemens’ winning bid…

The entire train is a one-off design, front lighting is a drop in the ocean compared to bogieless tube-profile carriages and sub-520mm air cooling equipment.

 

[Nym]

The "Entire Train" will be far from a "one off design".

It will be based on (where practicable to do so) standard equipment Siemens has used before.

To take this to the absolute extreme. I very much doubt they'll have designed a whole new EN50264 type cable for this train, they'll very likely be using something like Nexans Flamex, Huber and Shuner 4GKW, etc. They havn't designed a whole new connector standard or system, they're using connectors according to the standards for M12s, DIN41682, etc, and whatever their vendors put on the equipment, which, they will have used before.

They will also not be using a brand new system for the majority of systems well up to the component and system level.

You simply do not 're-invent' equipment, it's not efficient, effective or affordable.

 

[Silent]

Cost cutting got us the 1983 stock I think, I may be wrong. That didn’t last long.

LED lighting is relatively cheap nowadays.

The cost of old style lights, and the risk of not being able to get replacement halogen (or similar) bulbs in 20 or 30 years must look dreadful on a cost comparison

^

 

[Nym]

Cost cutting got us the 1983 stock I think, I may be wrong. That didn’t last long.


^

1983TS also had some very nice design features, just some of the choices were not as 'good' as the others.

"Those who know, know." know about things like the jumper multi-point connection boxes. Much easier to wire than the 1972TS and 1973TS designs.

 

[100andthirty]

1983 tube stock was hampered by a number of choices that were not cost cutting:

- wide single doors rather than conventional double doors. Perhaps made sense for the original Jubilee line route an passenger numbers at the time of design but were wholly impractical for the Extension to canary Wharf + the huge increase in passegner numbers in the late 1980s.
- Intergrated lights and advert panels to allow 'illuminated adverts. This was a feature promoted by a chief of the time. They were hard to maintain, so the 2nd batch had conventional exposed tubes.
- A different supplier for the traction control equipment and motor alternators. This was a commercial initiative to introduce competition but it was badly timed as convetional resistance control and motor alternators were about to be replaced by solid state systems. Both new suppliers suffered first time supply teething troubles and maintainers had to learn new skills
- The new bogie design suffered cracks - a common issue with welded bogies of that time.

Costs were comparable with D stock allowing for inflation

It was the single doors that made the trains totally unsuitable for the JLE, hence their replacement. They were earmarked to increase frequency on the Piccadilly line, but it was demonstrated that the existing signalling couldn't cope more frequent trains - hence they were scrapped early.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

The "Entire Train" will be far from a "one off design".

It will be based on (where practicable to do so) standard equipment Siemens has used before.

To take this to the absolute extreme. I very much doubt they'll have designed a whole new EN50264 type cable for this train, they'll very likely be using something like Nexans Flamex, Huber and Shuner 4GKW, etc. They havn't designed a whole new connector standard or system, they're using connectors according to the standards for M12s, DIN41682, etc, and whatever their vendors put on the equipment, which, they will have used before.

They will also not be using a brand new system for the majority of systems well up to the component and system level.

You simply do not 're-invent' equipment, it's not efficient, effective or affordable.

Actually in this case a lot of it is bespoke because they've had to shrink most of it to execute this unique "all components under the train" design.

This is explicitly stated many times in the doucments, for example the traction motor system which is stated to be , a. special design for the size constraints of LU and b. the first permanant magnent tracition motor they've used for series production.

On the website and in the press videos, they consistency make it clear that they've had to redesign a lot of the components for the very limited space, especially the HVAC. Additionally this is the first Movia train to feature the floating carriage design so they couldn't have just pulled stuff like brackets from previous versions.

In terms of small components like you mention, those are different too. They're having to use SSPC (solid state power circuts) rather than circut breakers due to the limited space (IMechE Video: 41:10)

 

[rebmcr]

The "Entire Train" will be far from a "one off design".

It will be based on (where practicable to do so) standard equipment Siemens has used before.

To take this to the absolute extreme. I very much doubt they'll have designed a whole new EN50264 type cable for this train, they'll very likely be using something like Nexans Flamex, Huber and Shuner 4GKW, etc. They havn't designed a whole new connector standard or system, they're using connectors according to the standards for M12s, DIN41682, etc, and whatever their vendors put on the equipment, which, they will have used before.

They will also not be using a brand new system for the majority of systems well up to the component and system level.

You simply do not 're-invent' equipment, it's not efficient, effective or affordable.

Sounds like they'll be using off-the-shelf LED modules under the one-off tube-profile cab moulding, so I'm still unsure of your original criticism.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Is my understanding correct that the trains haven’t entered regular testing yet and hence are already quite unlikely to enter into service this year?

I presume this is still true as I haven't heard of any testing being done on the Tube?

 

[Dstock7080]

I presume this is still true as I haven't heard of any testing being done on the Tube?

Still at Ruislip, signal immunisation still being undertaken on Line.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Still at Ruislip, signal immunisation still being undertaken on Line.

Thanks good to know. There are closures planned up to August, hopefully they're not all needed for immunisation!

 

[GFE]

I thought the "signal immunisation" works is only necessary Rayners Lane - North Acton.
There were however a lot of compatibility works required (eg signal visibility, correct side door controls, track condition, platform/tunnel clearances, Traction supplies, Traction rails) and the weekend closures appear to be to expedite these.
According to the latest board report "intensive testing" has started (in Ruislip depot), Not sure whether it has moved under its own control yet.
Unclear whether the train will be moved for mainline testing on the Picc line or whether this will start Rayners - Uxbridge (based from Ruislip)

 

[danielnez1]

1983 tube stock was hampered by a number of choices that were not cost cutting:

- wide single doors rather than conventional double doors. Perhaps made sense for the original Jubilee line route an passenger numbers at the time of design but were wholly impractical for the Extension to canary Wharf + the huge increase in passegner numbers in the late 1980s.
- Intergrated lights and advert panels to allow 'illuminated adverts. This was a feature promoted by a chief of the time. They were hard to maintain, so the 2nd batch had conventional exposed tubes.
- A different supplier for the traction control equipment and motor alternators. This was a commercial initiative to introduce competition but it was badly timed as convetional resistance control and motor alternators were about to be replaced by solid state systems. Both new suppliers suffered first time supply teething troubles and maintainers had to learn new skills
- The new bogie design suffered cracks - a common issue with welded bogies of that time.

Costs were comparable with D stock allowing for inflation

It was the single doors that made the trains totally unsuitable for the JLE, hence their replacement. They were earmarked to increase frequency on the Piccadilly line, but it was demonstrated that the existing signalling couldn't cope more frequent trains - hence they were scrapped early.

AFIK one of the critisims was also that the entire design was made by LT rather than allowing Metro-Cammell some input into the design decisions (which they were more than capable of doing). The failure of the 1983 stock influenced the development of the 86 Stock prototypes and the development of the 92TS (Which IMHO Metro-Cammell should have got), and also set the current standard for the LU of heavy manufacturer input for the base design.

 

[Dstock7080]

I thought the "signal immunisation" works is only necessary Rayners Lane - North Acton.

17-18 May
19-20 July
‘PLU signal immunisation and commissioning work’
No service King’s Cross-Osterley/Uxbridge.
(no Night Tube on entire Line Sat AM).
District closures necessary.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

17-18 May
19-29 July
‘PLU signal immunisation and commissioning work’
No service King’s Cross-Osterley/Uxbridge.
(no Night Tube on entire Line Sat AM).
District closures necessary.

Based on that timeframe I'd guess testing of the trains on the Tube will start sometime in August

 

[100andthirty]

AFIK one of the critisims was also that the entire design was made by LT rather than allowing Metro-Cammell some input into the design decisions (which they were more than capable of doing). The failure of the 1983 stock influenced the development of the 86 Stock prototypes and the development of the 92TS (Which IMHO Metro-Cammell should have got), and also set the current standard for the LU of heavy manufacturer input for the base design.

LT designed the overall configuration and managed the systems integration of the 1983 tube stock as had been the case for decades before*. Metro Cammell carried out detailed design, built the carbody (and, usually the bogie, but on 1983 tube stock the bogies came from BREL) and fitted all the kit that had been purchased by LT. GEC (pre their purchase of Metro Cammell) undertook the wiring.

There was a disconnect between commercial and technical at the time which, I think, wasn't recognised at the time. The commercial folk wanted more competition, but it hadn't been realised that 1983 tube stock would probably be the last train with 'conventional equipment' and future designs, which were being developed in parallel, would be quite different. Thus developing competition for electro-mechanical traction equipment, and motor alternators was pretty pointless when the future was solid state systems.

There was also a strategic plan to place overall responsibility with a supplier of a whole train rather than LT acting as system integrator. This was innovative as the UK suppliers' ability to undertake such integration was quite limited and not as stated by denielnez1. In fact the 2nd batch of 1983 tube stock was procured as a main contract, and Metro-Cammell made some changes to suppliers - for example, Brush carried out the wiring.

*e.g., 1983 tube stock and D stock. I don't think anyone is suggesting these weren't successful designs.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

AFIK one of the critisims was also that the entire design was made by LT rather than allowing Metro-Cammell some input into the design decisions (which they were more than capable of doing). The failure of the 1983 stock influenced the development of the 86 Stock prototypes and the development of the 92TS (Which IMHO Metro-Cammell should have got), and also set the current standard for the LU of heavy manufacturer input for the base design.

Also, it is worth remembering that ABB (BREL) were very close to winning the order for the new Northern Line trains! Imagine having two lines with 1992TS, whose troublesome nature would have became more apparent later!
In my 1994 compilation of "Underground News" issues ABB did infact produce a mock-up 1992TS car for the Northern Line, it had three different moquette designs and interior shell colours. However GEC-Metro-Cammell won it eventually after a brief halt due to funding. We now know that this outcome would have saved TFL, from more chaos let alone the Central Line saga throughout the years!