Should the 2024 Stock order be expanded?

[SolomonSouth]

I frequently use the tube, and in my opinion, many of our lines have old, unpleasant, unreliable trains, and would greatly benefit from the 2024 stock. Right now, it is only supposed to replace the '73 stock - and that's good, if well, well overdue - but I think it could and should be replacing much, much more.

- The 1972 stock should be replaced. Why they were not replaced 15-25 years ago is anyone's guess, but these trains have massively overstayed their welcome, and it shows. They are getting extremely tatty both inside and outside, and the reliability and availability of the 1972 stock has fallen off a cliff. Shortages of trains are now common on the Bakerloo line, with replacement buses often running to Harrow and Wealdstone, because the trains themselves are not reliable enough to run the services. I'm being serious - you just have to go down to Waterloo underground station any day and there is a significant chance that service frequency and/or length will be lower than normal due to train shortages. I can guarantee that the Bakerloo line would not need replacement buses if it was run with the 2024 stock. Unfortunately, TFL have not ordered any to replace the '72 stock, so the '72 stock could still be around for ages. I really think they should be replaced, though. They are begging for scrap at this point.

- The 1992 (including the Waterloo and City line stock) and 1996 stock are both struggling a lot now and definitely need to go. While these trains are not as old as the 1972 and 1973 stock they need replacing just as much, if not more so. Why? Well, both of these trains have poor reliability and defects from build that were never rectified making the service on their respective lines patchy. There are many posts on the unreliability of the 1992 stock. I'm not making this up, there are threads on it - https://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thre... https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/... There was also an incident where a motor fell off a 1992 stock at speed. How these trains have escaped early replacement is beyond me, and the Central line is suffering from train shortages - partly due to trains being refurbed, but mostly due to the 92 stock's abysmal failure rate. The Central line would not have anywhere near as many shortages if it was being run with 2024 stock.

- The 1996 stock is equally bad. This thread has some details as to why. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/... In a nutshell, the electronics in the '96 stock are obsolete and unreliable, plus the fact that there are potential bodywork cracks that are still unfixed and untreated to this day. I cannot imagine this is good for the longevity of the trains.

- The 1992 stock and 1996 stock could and should have been candidates for early replacement. You could have even justified it 15 years ago, but it'd be especially easy to make a case for it now given the increasing age of the trains (plus spare parts getting much thinner on the ground). Well, unfortunately, nothing is happening to the 1996 stock. No replacement planned, nothing. They continue to flounder around, clinging on for dear life. The infamous 1992 stock, meanwhile, is getting a refurbishment at 30 years old. Yeah... definitely an interesting course of action to take. They should have been replaced. I guess the refurbishment could stave off the worst of the reliability problems, but new trains would have been much better.

- Let's look at it like this - a refurbished 1992 stock offers slightly better reliability and perhaps performance than a standard 1992 stock. That's it.

- Meanwhile, a 2024 stock offers much better performance, much better reliability, more capacity, potentially (probably) better seats, potentially (probably) better suspension, a full walkthrough so you aren't stuck in a crowded coach, and air conditioning, so you don't feel like you're being cooked alive in the summer. Which do you think passengers will prefer? I think most average commuters would really appreciate the 2024 stock over a refurbished 1992 stock.

- You could also make a fairly strong case to replace the 1995 stock. Although these are of a significantly better build quality and have much greater reliability than the 1992 and 1996 stock, they are still showing signs that they are approaching the end of their life rapidly. Floors are getting bubbly. Vents are getting jammed. Seats are getting dusty and some cushions are very worn down indeed so have lost their squish. Doors are not fixed in as tightly as they used to and are beginning to rattle around at speed in some sets. I have even encountered a few with loose floor panelling. The suspension and ride quality on some of them is extremely poor. New, comfortable, clean, smooth trains - the 2024 stock - would again be very, very welcome on the Northern line.

- The 2009 stock is too young and reliable to be feasibly replaced but could do with a good deep clean and some TLC, as many sets are getting very rattly. The S stock is in a good condition. Unfortunately it's about the only tube stock that is.

My personal view on the matter is that the 2024 stock should replace the 72, 73, 92 and 96 stock AT MINIMUM, and preferably the 95 stock too. It would really help the ambience and comfort the underground, and would enable us to finally send our ailing, unreliable, rickety, obsolete trains off to the scrapman. What are your thoughts?

 

[brad465]

Saidq Khan is (rightly) very strongly in favour of getting the 2024 stock order expanded to cover the Bakerloo line fleet replacement. I can see this being approved for a number of reasons, including this being the oldest fleet and most in serious need of replacement, as well as simultaneously giving economic boosts to both London and part of the North East (where the main factory is).

However, TfL are still strapped for cash and replacing other fleets is less likely to occur anytime soon. Anything from the 90s onwards is more likely to be replaced by whatever the next generation is.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Saidq Khan is (rightly) very strongly in favour of getting the 2024 stock order expanded to cover the Bakerloo line fleet replacement. I can see this being approved for a number of reasons, including this being the oldest fleet and most in serious need of replacement, as well as simultaneously giving economic boosts to both London and part of the North East (where the main factory is).

However, TfL are still strapped for cash and replacing other fleets is less likely to occur anytime soon. Anything from the 90s onwards is more likely to be replaced by whatever the next generation is.

Unfortunately the 90s stock is not doing well. In fact it is, on the whole, barely doing any better than the 1972 stock.. The 1992 and 1996 stock were both unreliable from build, are both now running into serious problems, and should have already been replaced many years ago, with the 1995 stock dropping subtle hints that it, too, is just about approaching the end of its life.

I can almost guarantee that passengers would greatly prefer the air conditioned, smoother 2024 stock to any 1990s tube stock.

 

[NCT]

Isn't the (what's now known as) the 2024 stock part of a framework contract with options for future batches for the Bakerloo and Central lines?

I suspect the Jubilee line's platform screen doors have made door positions fixed, so any replacement can't be just a variant of the 2024 stock and there will have to be a new tender when the time comes.

 

[Helvellyn]

The 1992 stock and 1996 stock could and should have been candidates for early replacement. You could have even justified it 15 years ago.

No, you really couldn't have justified replacing the 1992 and 1996 stock in 2010 coming out of a global financial crisis with an incoming Coalition Government slashing spending across the board. That's before the headlines that Londoners would be having 16-17 year old (1992 stock) and 12-13 year old (1996 stock) trains replaced whilst Pacers were still trundling around the North and South West of England plus South Wales Valleys. As for the '38 stock still in use on the Isle of Wight at that time...

 

[bramling]

I frequently use the tube, and in my opinion, many of our lines have old, unpleasant, unreliable trains, and would greatly benefit from the 2024 stock. Right now, it is only supposed to replace the '73 stock - and that's good, if well, well overdue - but I think it could and should be replacing much, much more.

- The 1972 stock should be replaced. Why they were not replaced 15-25 years ago is anyone's guess, but these trains have massively overstayed their welcome, and it shows. They are getting extremely tatty both inside and outside, and the reliability and availability of the 1972 stock has fallen off a cliff. Shortages of trains are now common on the Bakerloo line, with replacement buses often running to Harrow and Wealdstone, because the trains themselves are not reliable enough to run the services. I'm being serious - you just have to go down to Waterloo underground station any day and there is a significant chance that service frequency and/or length will be lower than normal due to train shortages. I can guarantee that the Bakerloo line would not need replacement buses if it was run with the 2024 stock. Unfortunately, TFL have not ordered any to replace the '72 stock, so the '72 stock could still be around for ages. I really think they should be replaced, though. They are begging for scrap at this point.

- The 1992 (including the Waterloo and City line stock) and 1996 stock are both struggling a lot now and definitely need to go. While these trains are not as old as the 1972 and 1973 stock they need replacing just as much, if not more so. Why? Well, both of these trains have poor reliability and defects from build that were never rectified making the service on their respective lines patchy. There are many posts on the unreliability of the 1992 stock. I'm not making this up, there are threads on it - https://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thre... https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/... There was also an incident where a motor fell off a 1992 stock at speed. How these trains have escaped early replacement is beyond me, and the Central line is suffering from train shortages - partly due to trains being refurbed, but mostly due to the 92 stock's abysmal failure rate. The Central line would not have anywhere near as many shortages if it was being run with 2024 stock.

- The 1996 stock is equally bad. This thread has some details as to why. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/... In a nutshell, the electronics in the '96 stock are obsolete and unreliable, plus the fact that there are potential bodywork cracks that are still unfixed and untreated to this day. I cannot imagine this is good for the longevity of the trains.

- The 1992 stock and 1996 stock could and should have been candidates for early replacement. You could have even justified it 15 years ago, but it'd be especially easy to make a case for it now given the increasing age of the trains (plus spare parts getting much thinner on the ground). Well, unfortunately, nothing is happening to the 1996 stock. No replacement planned, nothing. They continue to flounder around, clinging on for dear life. The infamous 1992 stock, meanwhile, is getting a refurbishment at 30 years old. Yeah... definitely an interesting course of action to take. They should have been replaced. I guess the refurbishment could stave off the worst of the reliability problems, but new trains would have been much better.

- Let's look at it like this - a refurbished 1992 stock offers slightly better reliability and perhaps performance than a standard 1992 stock. That's it.

- Meanwhile, a 2024 stock offers much better performance, much better reliability, more capacity, potentially (probably) better seats, potentially (probably) better suspension, a full walkthrough so you aren't stuck in a crowded coach, and air conditioning, so you don't feel like you're being cooked alive in the summer. Which do you think passengers will prefer? I think most average commuters would really appreciate the 2024 stock over a refurbished 1992 stock.

- You could also make a fairly strong case to replace the 1995 stock. Although these are of a significantly better build quality and have much greater reliability than the 1992 and 1996 stock, they are still showing signs that they are approaching the end of their life rapidly. Floors are getting bubbly. Vents are getting jammed. Seats are getting dusty and some cushions are very worn down indeed so have lost their squish. Doors are not fixed in as tightly as they used to and are beginning to rattle around at speed in some sets. I have even encountered a few with loose floor panelling. The suspension and ride quality on some of them is extremely poor. New, comfortable, clean, smooth trains - the 2024 stock - would again be very, very welcome on the Northern line.

- The 2009 stock is too young and reliable to be feasibly replaced but could do with a good deep clean and some TLC, as many sets are getting very rattly. The S stock is in a good condition. Unfortunately it's about the only tube stock that is.

My personal view on the matter is that the 2024 stock should replace the 72, 73, 92 and 96 stock AT MINIMUM, and preferably the 95 stock too. It would really help the ambience and comfort the underground, and would enable us to finally send our ailing, unreliable, rickety, obsolete trains off to the scrapman. What are your thoughts?

Bit of a reality check needed here. If TFL haven’t managed to afford sorting some of the issues described with 92 and 96 stocks, what makes anyone think it would be possible to find the money to replace half their fleet on a whim?

The work needed to change a fleet is massive, as well as all the training costs there’s also potential infrastructure changes including depots, and with modern signalling systems you can’t just put a train on the railway and expect it to function.

 

[Zomboid]

We don't yet know if this stock is going to be reliable in the longer term. I'd wait to see how the bottom of the bathtub curve looks before suggesting that every deep tube line should be equipped with it.

 

[SolomonSouth]

We don't yet know if this stock is going to be reliable in the longer term. I'd wait to see how the bottom of the bathtub curve looks before suggesting that every deep tube line should be equipped with it.

I’d think it unlikely that they end up less reliable than 50 year old trains and infamously unreliable 30 year old trains, but time will tell on that one.

Bit of a reality check needed here. If TFL haven’t managed to afford sorting some of the issues described with 92 and 96 stocks, what makes anyone think it would be possible to find the money to replace half their fleet on a whim?

The work needed to change a fleet is massive, as well as all the training costs there’s also potential infrastructure changes including depots, and with modern signalling systems you can’t just put a train on the railway and expect it to function.

Fair points - although we don’t know for sure that TFL couldn’t afford to sort them out (there is a possibility that they had the money, and just couldn’t be asked to do it) money troubles could well stand in the way of a better railway, unfortunately.

 

[Zomboid]

think it unlikely that they end up less reliable than 50 year old trains and infamously unreliable 30 year old trains, but time will tell on that one.

But "better than something terrible" isn't the benchmark to be aiming for. They could be better than the 92 stock without being good enough for use on other lines.

 

[signed]

I’d think it unlikely that they end up less reliable than 50 year old trains and infamously unreliable 30 year old trains, but time will tell on that one.

New trains have been noticably more unreliable the last few years, let them sit the bathtub curve before rushing to replace 90s and later stock

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I like the Bakerloo Line trains. Most comfortable trains on the system.

The jubilee and northern line trains are fine. And the 1992 stock trains are my favourite. I even love the Piccadilly line trains (apart from the God awful seating) so from my selfish perspective I’m happy with the system as it is. (Apart from the S stock, they can go)

 

[SolomonSouth]

New trains have been noticably more unreliable the last few years, let them sit the bathtub curve before rushing to replace 90s and later stock

Fair point. The reliability figures for new trains on the whole have been very low recently, exceptions being the 707 and 385.

But "better than something terrible" isn't the benchmark to be aiming for. They could be better than the 92 stock without being good enough for use on other lines.

I'll concede that they could well end up less reliable than the 95 stock, but they are very unlikely to be worse than the 72, 73, 92, and 96 stock, which is a considerable portion of the underground they could replace even if they didn't turn out great.

I like the Bakerloo Line trains. Most comfortable trains on the system.

That's fair - as an enthusiast, you may like them. I won't tell you not to like them in that way - old can have a charm to it, after all - but what I will say is they barely work at this point and, for average commuters who often use the Bakerloo line, the air conditioned, smooth, fast, clean, and shiny 2024 stock cannot come fast enough.

 

[Wolfie]

I’d think it unlikely that they end up less reliable than 50 year old trains and infamously unreliable 30 year old trains, but time will tell on that one.

Fair points - although we don’t know for sure that TFL couldn’t afford to sort them out (there is a possibility that they had the money, and just couldn’t be asked to do it) money troubles could well stand in the way of a better railway, unfortunately.

Re your last para TfL having had to get several Government bailouts as a result of the impact of COVID on their finances is a pretty good clue!

 

[stevieinselby]

I can almost guarantee that passengers would greatly prefer the air conditioned, smoother 2024 stock to any 1990s tube stock.

I have no doubt they would, but would they also prefer the increase in fares that would be needed to cover the cost of replacing stock that is not yet life-expired or fully depreciated?

 

[Blindtraveler]

I can almost see the arguement for replacing the 92 stock, love it as I do, the improvement and upgrade project seems to be at best limping along and so if they wanted to take the opportunity to replace both baker Lou and Central fleets now and then roll out. Perhaps a slightly updated and modified design for the 95 and 96 replacements, with build and implementation starting in say 2030

 

[NCT]

As LU purchases its rolling stock, there's a significant lump of cash required and has to be financed/funded by the Treasury.

 

[SolomonSouth]

I can almost see the arguement for replacing the 92 stock, love it as I do, the improvement and upgrade project seems to be at best limping along and so if they wanted to take the opportunity to replace both baker Lou and Central fleets now and then roll out. Perhaps a slightly updated and modified design for the 95 and 96 replacements, with build and implementation starting in say 2030

To be honest, the 92 stock has been begging for replacement for a long time now. I would imagine the only reason they didn’t replace them and decided to refurbish them was due to a lack of money to order more 2024 stock.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I wonder if there's an arguement for reviewing the funding model again? I'm guessing without knowing a great deal about it that the answer to this is probably not given that there's going to be absolutely zero use for a fleet of deep level tube stock specifically constructed for a certain route with a largely customised specification if a leasing company were to get involved, but my totally non-mathematical brain says that they must surely be a different way of coming up with money for stock replacement that's not going to ultimately end up costing more in the long run

 

[Kite159]

Logically it makes sense ordering more of the 2024 Stock to replace the Bakerloo, Central line and with a view to eventually replace the northern line & jubilee line.

Similar to how the S-Stock replaced the A, C & D stock trains, an uniform fleet for the deep tube will probably assist with maintenance costs for spare parts.

 

[Mawkie]

Like all the great ideas, it's a case of financial limitations. Of course everyone would like new trains every 10 years, the best of the best, but the questions is where is the money coming from?

The questions being asked in the TfL boardroom are:

Do you we buy new trains?
Or do we make more stations step free?
Or should we commission a new £billion pound signalling system?
Do we upgrade our station facilities?
Do we need to create more stabling space for potential improvements?
Do we need to improve depot equipment?
And so on.

LU are already sweating their assets to the limits but there is only so much cash to go around!

 

[Blindtraveler]

I was surprised that more of the 2009 stock was not ordered, even if a different design slightly and badged as 2010 or similar

 

[bramling]

I was surprised that more of the 2009 stock was not ordered, even if a different design slightly and badged as 2010 or similar

The 09 stock was a Metronet design, Tube Lines had proposed their own design for the Piccadilly Line, but this got cancelled with the budget cuts, hence the 73 stock was life extended for 8 years, and in the event has kept running for some years beyond that.

There’s an element of planning blight gone on, as the 09 stock was quite a traditional design. Metronet played things very safe in terms of sticking to specification. They’re a world away from the “space train” concept that LU was looking at over the preceding years.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Logically it makes sense ordering more of the 2024 Stock to replace the Bakerloo, Central line and with a view to eventually replace the northern line & jubilee line.

Similar to how the S-Stock replaced the A, C & D stock trains, an uniform fleet for the deep tube will probably assist with maintenance costs for spare parts.

They should replace at least the Jubilee line along with the Bakerloo and Central, because the 1996 stock is so awful I can't see it lasting much longer. The 95 stock is a bit more of a maybe, but if you had the money, you ideally would (and should for fleet commonality/efficiency).

Like all the great ideas, it's a case of financial limitations. Of course everyone would like new trains every 10 years, the best of the best, but the questions is where is the money coming from?

I suspected money played a part. If they had more money, I have no doubt they would have replaced the stock I mentioned.

In my opinion, we should not label trains "life expired," after a certain number of years, but when they stop working well. This is why I say that the 96 stock is "life expired," because they do not work very well anymore. However, I would not label the older Class 59s as "life expired," since they still work well. It all depends on the reliability of the train in question.

 

[bramling]

They should replace at least the Jubilee line along with the Bakerloo and Central, because the 1996 stock is so awful I can't see it lasting much longer. The 95 stock is a bit more of a maybe, but if you had the money, you ideally would (and should for fleet commonality/efficiency).

I suspected money played a part. If they had more money, I have no doubt they would have replaced the stock I mentioned.

In my opinion, we should not label trains "life expired," after a certain number of years, but when they stop working well. This is why I say that the 96 stock is "life expired," because they do not work very well anymore. However, I would not label the older Class 59s as "life expired," since they still work well. It all depends on the reliability of the train in question.

Trains stop working well for a number of reasons besides age. Maintenance and duty cycle play a significant part. For sure there’s issues with the 96 stock, but if the operator won’t or can’t spent money on attempting to fix issues then there’s no guarantee that a replacement fleet will not run into the same issues. Bearing in mind that replacing a fleet is a significant exercise in itself, and will result in a rough period of reliability whilst bedding in.

To be honest as a Northern Line user I’d stick with the 95 stock. If you wanted a quicker win in terms of improving dependability on LU then it would be far easier to sort out the whole crewing situation, which has been a mess for many years, and aggravated by Covid. I’d suggest far more delay is caused by lack of drivers than rolling stock problems, and remember that to introduce a new fleet you will likely need *more* drivers to cover for training.

 

[Mikey C]

The 09 stock was a Metronet design, Tube Lines had proposed their own design for the Piccadilly Line, but this got cancelled with the budget cuts, hence the 73 stock was life extended for 8 years, and in the event has kept running for some years beyond that.

There’s an element of planning blight gone on, as the 09 stock was quite a traditional design. Metronet played things very safe in terms of sticking to specification. They’re a world away from the “space train” concept that LU was looking at over the preceding years.

The 2009s are also a bespoke size to make the most of the slightly bigger Victoria Line tunnels, they wouldn't fit the other deep tube lines.

The 72s desperately need replacing, it's only because of lack of agreed financing that no order has been placed yet.

With the 92s, I do worry that all the work being done on them is throwing good money after bad. Especially when you consider the interminably slow progress of the CLIP programme. A retractioning programme on the 96s might make more sense though, as the fundamentals of the design (as shown by the 95s) are fine.

 

[AndrewP]

Maybe refurbish enough 1992 trains for the Bakerloo and Waterloo and City lines and replace the Central line trains.

Also maybe go for leasing rather than purchase to ease the financial burden (at least initially) although this may require a new procurement process

 

[NCT]

LU trains are captive to the system (in fact each batch may be captive to the line) - that's not attractive to ROSCOs.

 

[JonathanH]

Also maybe go for leasing rather than purchase to ease the financial burden (at least initially) although this may require a new procurement process

The problem with leasing underground stock, as opposed to mainline stock, is that it is somewhat limited as to where else it can be used.

Hence why the Elizabeth Line stock could be leased to finance 2024 stock.

See https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/upgrading-the-piccadilly/

The chances of a rolling stock leasing company (known as ROSCOs) agreeing to leaseback the Piccadilly fleet itself was always going to be low (or at least very expensive) simply because the potential for that ROSCO to shift a bespoke fleet on to another supplier is small. When the only other place your trains regularly run is the Isle of Wight (and even that now has its issues) then you’re not an attractive prospect to a ROSCO. The Crossrail (or rather Elizabeth) fleet, however, is a different prospect. The Bombardier Class 345s are eminently marketable to other train operators.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Maybe refurbish enough 1992 trains for the Bakerloo

Will they fit on the Bakerloo? The carriages are about 25cm longer than those of 1972 Stock and they're only 2cm narrower.

 

[Mikey C]

Will they fit on the Bakerloo? The carriages are about 25cm longer than those of 1972 Stock and they're only 2cm narrower.

I'd be surprised if they didn't (once shortened to 7 cars), considering the tight curves they currently cope with at the likes of Bank for example.