1992 stock Refurbishment?

[Mikey C]

So having spent all the money and all the time that some of the trains are now underway, now you think would be the time to cancel it - when, as others have said, there isn't a realistic option to replace the 92s and they won't survive without any work being done? It seems daft to me to chuck away all the time and money, the programme might as well be seen through now.

At the rate they're going, the final train emerging from the CLIP programme will be driven straight to the scrap yard.

 

[Recessio]

At the rate they're going, the final train emerging from the CLIP programme will be driven straight to the scrap yard.

Haha true! But, that's better than being driven into the scrapyard ten years before any reasonable prospect of a replacement.

 

[RUK]

At the rate they're going, the final train emerging from the CLIP programme will be driven straight to the scrap yard.

London Underground are using very old Tube trains for some of their engineering trains - presumably the refurbished 1992 Stock could be used for those, once they’ve been replaced?

 

[Wolfie]

London Underground are using very old Tube trains for some of their engineering trains - presumably the refurbished 1992 Stock could be used for those, once they’ve been replaced?

Assuming that they would fit everywhere that seems to be a possibility.

 

[Brooke]

Last week there were Minor Delays (and on Friday Severe Delays) “due to Train Cancellations”. And back to Minor Delays again this evening.

Does anyone know if this is down to train unreliability, staffing gaps or other? Its certainly not due to graffiti removal, because many trains are running covered in it again!

 

[announcements]

So having spent all the money and all the time that some of the trains are now underway, now you think would be the time to cancel it - when, as others have said, there isn't a realistic option to replace the 92s and they won't survive without any work being done? It seems daft to me to chuck away all the time and money, the programme might as well be seen through now

My point being they ceased on the 1972MkI refurbs, which were 3 units - 2 less than the current CLIP progress. It isn't too late at all, when you consider how many more are left, and rising costs. As you say, others have said what they said and put forward a good case to continue, but this forum should be about discussion and debate and I make no apologies for making a suggestion.

 

[bramling]

My point being they ceased on the 1972MkI refurbs, which were 3 units - 2 less than the current CLIP progress. It isn't too late at all, when you consider how many more are left, and rising costs. As you say, others have said what they said and put forward a good case to continue, but this forum should be about discussion and debate and I make no apologies for making a suggestion.

Ceasing CLIP is certainly something that *could* be done. The question is at what consequence, how likely that consequence might be, and whether that is considered acceptable.

I think the generally accepted view is that “do nothing and let the fleet continue as is” would probably eventually end up with an untenable level of fleet availability, possibly reaching the point where the Central Line couldn’t deliver a service in anything like its normal form. There are also potential indirect and maybe even direct safety issues to consider with this.

There’s also the accessibility work, which has already dragged on well past 2020. Again, in theory exemptions can be applies or legislation changed, but there are consequences to this.

The other option is to downscale CLIP to the absolute bare minimum, although what that might be, what it would save, and how this would work out, is anyone’s guess.

CLIP has already been value engineered. Really it should have happened many years ago. With no fleet replacement on the horizon my own view is that it would be risky to cancel it, as it would be taking a significant gamble on a uniquely troublesome fleet that has given trouble right through its life almost from day one. None of us has a crystal ball, but LU’s engineers are best placed to determine what is needed to keep the fleet running. What is more unfortunate is that LU’s leadership have allowed this all to drift essentially for decades.

If it wasn’t for the fact that LU have had enough of a challenge replacing the Piccadilly fleet, let alone the Bakerloo fleet which may well see 60 years in service, CLIP probably wouldn’t have happened in the first place and we’d have a replacement fleet on the horizon. Worth remembering when people claim London’s transport infrastructure is gold-plated compared with other places.

 

[announcements]

Well put.

Remind me, was there a time limit placed on the exemption granted when DDA compliance wasn't achieved in 2020?

 

[MaidaVale]

Does anyone know if this is down to train unreliability, staffing gaps or other?

Specifically "Train Cancellations" relate to ONAs (Operator Not Available). Essentially staffing gaps with train operators. Usually down to sickness. Issues relating to trains will be specified as such in the delay message.

 

[Mojo]

Specifically "Train Cancellations" relate to ONAs (Operator Not Available). Essentially staffing gaps with train operators. Usually down to sickness. Issues relating to trains will be specified as such in the delay message.

“Train cancellations” is the public facing message for non-availability of fleet as well as for train operators. It is only if a train breaks down in service and then blocks the line will faulty train be used.

 

[Nym]

Assuming that they would fit everywhere that seems to be a possibility.

They don't.

The last "Go everywhere" units were 1972TS, but even then, they don't realistically fit in the Waterloo and City line.

 

[xtmw]

There are a few TSRs on the network which is causing some late running. Stratford and Woodford come to mind which easily adds an extra 3-5 mins to run time. I believe there is a TSR (albeit not a code 3 one so shouldn't affect schedule that much) in the Epping area due to reports of a rough ride however will have to double check that.
Unfortunately a lack of Ok stock, lack of T/Ops and various TSRs are creating some lumpy intervals on the line

CLIP trains are now assigned to any working (and have been for some time). However 91001 and 91201 have disappeared into thin air so that's helpful...
Edit : I am reliably informed that 91001&91201 are out today as 054

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Yes the 92 stock was probably the first of a new generation with so many electronic systems, regen braking, ATO, outsourced design etc.
The life cycle of such systems is unsurprisingly complex and a learning experience.

I think they are very good trains when they work, they feel more sprightly and less jolty than the 1995/96 stocks. Who has memories of when they entered service? Or when they ran at 100KPH!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 17:31 ==

I think they are very good trains when they work, they feel more sprightly and less jolty than the 1995/96 stocks. Who has memories of when they entered service? Or when they ran at 100KPH!

Which brings me on to why didn’t the 1992TS see a comprehensive “CLIP” style referb in Metronet days? The expensive drama of the SSL resignalling which was ultimately unsuccessful, the money they spent on it could have been more worthwhile on a 1992TS referb in the late 2000s-early 2010s? Was this ever considered I can’t seem to remember. I know they had a quote “Upgrade Plan” which was displayed liberally around the system around that time. Was the very minimal cosmetic refresh on the 1992TS a compromise or solution because TFL couldn’t face referbing them? A bury heads in sand approach?

 

[NCT]

Had my first CLIP train today. Quite surreal having a 92 stock train sounding like an S stock train (more S than 2009 I find).

And what a transformation. I know the cosmetic scope isn’t quite as extensive as some would like, but even just the bits that have been done already give a ‘new train’ feel.

 

[announcements]

I think they are very good trains when they work, they feel more sprightly and less jolty than the 1995/96 stocks. Who has memories of when they entered service? Or when they ran at 100KPH!

Is the joltiness of the '95/96 stocks down to signalling system rather than the train itself?

 

[pbin]

I think they are very good trains when they work, they feel more sprightly and less jolty than the 1995/96 stocks. Who has memories of when they entered service? Or when they ran at 100KPH!

Possibly because they’re not using Seltrac which seems to be the cause of joltiness on the subsurface lines too.

 

[bramling]

I think they are very good trains when they work, they feel more sprightly and less jolty than the 1995/96 stocks. Who has memories of when they entered service? Or when they ran at 100KPH!

Agreed. When they work they aren’t bad. I can certainly remember 100kph, it was quite an experience, especially as when it first came in there was still a lot of old track left. Northolt to South Ruislip was quite an experience, as were some other sections. The trains do very occasionally still touch 100kph in coded manual, but probably best we don’t dwell on that!

Which brings me on to why didn’t the 1992TS see a comprehensive “CLIP” style referb in Metronet days? The expensive drama of the SSL resignalling which was ultimately unsuccessful, the money they spent on it could have been more worthwhile on a 1992TS referb in the late 2000s-early 2010s? Was this ever considered I can’t seem to remember. I know they had a quote “Upgrade Plan” which was displayed liberally around the system around that time. Was the very minimal cosmetic refresh on the 1992TS a compromise or solution because TFL couldn’t face referbing them? A bury heads in sand approach?

Interesting question, however I think you have answered it with the bury heads in the sand. LU’s leadership structure has been very transient through the 2010s and 2020s, so it likely just ended up in the “too difficult” and “someone else’s problem” box, whilst LU were far too busy needlessly upsetting their staff with projects like Fit for the Future stations etc etc.

Being charitable, LU has been under significant financial pressure since 2008, other stuff has also had to be put on hold. Remember the 73 stock was supposed to have been replaced around 2014 but instead got life extended, and has already gone beyond the planned life extension. But on the other hand LU isn’t exactly great with using what money they do have wisely, how much was wasted on CityFlo, for example? Likewise a lot of shoddy work done by contractors, especially on the stations.

 

[xtmw]

Possibly because they’re not using Seltrac which seems to be the cause of joltiness on the subsurface lines too.

The Central Line ATP is not Seltrac, as you correctly say.
There have been reports of a rough ride on the eastern stretch of the network (which I believe has caused 1 or 2 TSRs, however do need to double check that)

 

[bramling]

The Central Line ATP is not Seltrac, as you correctly say.
There have been reports of a rough ride on the eastern stretch of the network (which I believe has caused 1 or 2 TSRs, however do need to double check that)

The Central Line system drives the train so much better than any of the successors. When it all works it’s a really good well-designed system.

I don’t think it’s the ATO system that the trains haven’t been able to cope with, just the generally intensive duty cycle of high speeds, high performance and the way the Central Line is quite an intensive line compared to some others. The 62 stock seemed to find themselves thrashed as well.

 

[GFE]

It has taken a long time and money to tweak the central line Signalling and train control system to this stage (rather like the Vic which I consider to be better).
Note the ATO is still aggressive with its driving technic and has been a suspect in contributing to Flash over motors and coupler problems (hence various experiments with Coasting and moderating some interfaces between the ATO outputs and Traction/brake systems)

 

[Recessio]

It has taken a long time and money to tweak the central line Signalling and train control system to this stage (rather like the Vic which I consider to be better)
Note the ATO is still aggressive with its driving technic and has been a suspect in contributing to Flash over motors and coupler problems (hence various experiments with Coasting and moderating some interfaces between the ATO outputs and Traction/brake systems)

The Jubilee also had problems with couplers/cracks, right? But the motors seem more reliable there, so is it something specific to the 1992 traction equipment that is susceptible to flash overs?

 

[xtmw]

It has taken a long time and money to tweak the central line Signalling and train control system to this stage (rather like the Vic which I consider to be better).
Note the ATO is still aggressive with its driving technic and has been a suspect in contributing to Flash over motors and coupler problems (hence various experiments with Coasting and moderating some interfaces between the ATO outputs and Traction/brake systems)

Its all gone rather quiet re coasting...

 

[RacsoMoquette]

The Central Line system drives the train so much better than any of the successors. When it all works it’s a really good well-designed system.

I don’t think it’s the ATO system that the trains haven’t been able to cope with, just the generally intensive duty cycle of high speeds, high performance and the way the Central Line is quite an intensive line compared to some others. The 62 stock seemed to find themselves thrashed as well.

What makes the Central Line more intensive than the Northern and District lines for instance? Both have ATO systems and open air stretches and stop start nature, especially the District.

 

[bramling]

The Jubilee also had problems with couplers/cracks, right? But the motors seem more reliable there, so is it something specific to the 1992 traction equipment that is susceptible to flash overs?

No one really knows the root cause of the flashovers. However it was the first application of a truly “high performance” railway, and came in just before the widespread switch from DC to AC traction. Whilst on paper the 92 stock is worked according to its design specification, in reality it seems the design just can’t fully cope with the demands placed on it.

Probably doesn’t help that LU services have tended to become more intensive over the years, especially off-peak, so you have the situation of trains working harder versus less time for maintenance.

 

[xtmw]

No one really knows the root cause of the flashovers. However it was the first application of a truly “high performance” railway, and came in just before the widespread switch from DC to AC traction. Whilst on paper the 92 stock is worked according to its design specification, in reality it seems the design just can’t fully cope with the demands placed on it.

Probably doesn’t help that LU services have tended to become more intensive over the years, especially off-peak, so you have the situation of trains working harder versus less time for maintenance.

This is obviously speculation from my part so not accurate- however I always thought it was a combination of trains not coasting (as they are pretty much in ATO all the time, some exceptions and coasting has only been recently enabled in PAC data), regen braking and some pretty intense speed in open areas. With Night Tube and the desire of more trains needed in service certainly doesn't help matters.

Note 1992 W&C is able to 'coast' as it's tripcock, doesn't do nearly enough milage as the CEN stock and regen braking (as far as I understand) is disabled on the W&C

There was also a problem with faulty compressors (not just flashovers), usual defects involving doors etc and when the wet weather hit there were issues with water ingress etc. Now there are too many ONAs that there are some lumpy intervals at times. That's also another thing I won't go into because that's another problem...

 

[Nym]

so is it something specific to the 1992 traction equipment that is susceptible to flash overs?

Motor brushes.

 

[Central]

Motor brushes.

Shouldn’t there be regular inspection of brushes to stop this happening?Was a regular maintenance regime on stock built before 92TS.

 

[Nym]

Shouldn’t there be regular inspection of brushes to stop this happening?Was a regular maintenance regime on stock built before 92TS.

All of the stocks previous coast significant distances and don't rheostatic/regeneratively brake down to 6mph.

They are also sepex, not series wound which all previous ones are, and that does make a difference to how the armature load changes.

 

[GFE]

Shouldn’t there be regular inspection of brushes to stop this happening?Was a regular maintenance regime on stock built before 92TS.

Worth noting that the 1992 stock supply contract was at the time where "value engineering" was rife & the motor/drive is probably at the edge of it rating .

Yes over the years the "maintenance attention" to try and manage this issue has traveled a long and windy road (including a lot of "specialist assistance")
Including:
Brush & spring material/supplier changes (intentional & unintentional)
Routine condition inspection of brushes, springs & holders and corrective action where necessary.
Routine measurement of brush length & wear trending (for each motor).
Targeted on train motor/commutator conditioning.
Scope/techniques for workshop motor repair/refurb.
Commutator rebuilds by specialist contractor.

All this whilst the Central line has been through a lot of general changes & staff turn over which all had affects.

All of the above have undoubtedly added to a high cost to run the 92 stock through periods of constant budget pressure. With a regular eye on the business case for change to a modern traction package (as in scope of CLIP)

The good news is that the motors removed from the early clip trains have bolstered the spares stock to facilitate the workshop repair/commutator rebuild cycle.

 

[xtmw]

Good news for last weekends closure- the new footbridge as apart of Leyton station upgrade was successfully put in place after an unsuccessful try last time!