I've heard that the S stock only have a Bodyshell designed to last 25-30 years , so if it isn't deemed economical to repair them for a extended life then we very well could see the first withdrawn around 2050.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
S Stock feels dated despite age
- Thread starter OneTrackMinded
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
OneTrackMinded
Member
They say this about all of them and then they manage to go on a lot longer with refurbishments and repairs.
Everyone jokes about new trains being made of plastic, but realistically they can be refurbished over and over to last many, many years.
I'm sure manufacturers want to state a likely lifespan though to encourage the sale of replacements within that 25-30 year period. Then the owner/leaseholder will likely want to try and extend their life.
Yeah, the whole 50 year old train thing is generally not what is hoped for but has typically just happened out of a lack of a replacement in time.
Would you say software and electronics would age them faster than old trains that don’t use as many computers?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Maybe it’s actually a good thing since rail tech has gotten good enough that their successors would hopefully have air cooling that works.If they were replaced earlier perhaps the tech just wouldn’t have been there yet and the new trains would have been saunas in the summertime.
Yes that's a possibility, although trains are basic metal shells and upgrading or replacing systems shouldn't be that difficult.
Having seen how trains are 'put together' when built, and how trains are extensively refurbished by pretty much being stripped to the bone, there's not that much difference.
If the train is structurally sound, it can likely be kept going.
Parts availability is probably the key issue, but it's probably easier to make new parts on demand now. We have 3D printing that can work for a lot of things too.
Ultimately though, manufacturers want to sell new trains.
One thing that struck me about the automobile industry now is the dependence on software systems to maintain roadworthyness.
Is there a chance that train manufacturers will not support, or be able to support, software systems in 30/40/50 years?
Dstock7080
Established Member
Upon a full reboot the drivers TCMS Train Control Management System shows a WindowsXP logo
RacsoMoquette
Member
I wonder what software runs the 1992TS TCMS system! Probably a very outdated running system. What system to the CLIP units now run on? The 1992TS managed to survive for 30 years with their old system, though obsolescence has and is still a major issue.
The basic components of modern stock are functionally the same as those on their equivalent predecessors. By that I mean bogies, motors, doors and motors. As the Southern Railway demonstrated, re-use of much of the parts of obsolescent EMUs enabled savings for decades. EE507 style motors are just commodity series wound DC traction motors, - they can run on resistor controlled DC, or rectified 50Hz as on some Mk1&3 EMUs, or GTO Thyristor choppers ala class 319s. I'm sure that if the need arose, they could be driven by modern IGBT or even future MOS or silicon carbide electronics. What will change is the control and monitoring equipment that can easily be simplified by robust standardised interfaces. Incompatible interfaces are one of the disadvantages of competition in suppliers unless there is a structure to define standards and interfaces that must be adhered to, - that has been so in the avionics world for decades.
Last edited:
EJD799
Member
Weren’t the computer systems of the 1992TS replaced during the recent refurbishment?
Dstock7080
Established Member
They are being replaced, with 4 in service
Tbh, looking at certain things visually the s stock looks more visually similar to the 24 stock, in a functional way, compared to 09 and prior stock. First thing is the outer side door seals. I recently noticed they look more firm. I imagine maybe improves insulation. It doesn’t look more aesthetically pleasing to me as it gives the doors a chunkier look I think. The very bottom of the 24 stock tapers in, maybe the a more insulating shape than just a right angle to the floor or a strengthening shape? The very bottom of the s stock body shell tapers out wards, I mean the point the side body joins the floor/under-frame, maybe to improve insulation?
Last edited:
I think you are seeing the differences between the Siemens way of doing things compared with others. Just compare the Desiro UK appearance with the Electrostar look with similar requirements. The tuck-in on the bodysides may be to maximise the internal shoulder width without compromising the platform edge clearance. The tube stock needs a more conformal cross section anyway as clearances are very small on the Central and the Yerkes lines so minor profile differences aren't really relevant aesthetically. Remember, one of the two major candidate deployments of the base 24TS design is the Central Line that is even tighter than the Piccadilly/Bakerloo, and that constraint is in the tunnel diameter, which can't be fixed by shortening the car length/bogie centre tweaks.
You might be right, also noticed like the 92 stock, but not other stock, the door step doesn’t protrude which obviously adds a bit more internal width.
Just looked at a Class 717 to an Electrostar and Aventra. Siemens train looks like it is better build quality.
Last edited:
I suppose it is a German thing, but in my experience, Seimens' rail products do seem to be better designed for their intended purpose. It's a shame that we haven't had any Siemens Verve products in the UK as they would probably give some of the CAF (and probably Statler) trains a quality performance and at a lower cost of ownership. I look forward to seeing how the 24TS fares in its first few years.
bramling
Veteran Member
I wouldn’t say there’s much difference between an Desiro and something like a 387. The later Electrostars seem slightly more robustly built than the earlier ones.
There is quite an age difference between the oldest and youngest Electrostars though, so it's not quite a fair comparison.
In my opinion, build quality and design quality are the two biggest factors that determine the "good-ness" (e.g. passenger satisfaction, reliability) of a train. Siemens, Stadler and Bombardier all excel/have excelled in those three areas, although I think that Stadler's design team is a notch above the rest. Obviously those three manufacturers also have their niches; Bombardier liked commuter trains (Electrostar, Aventra), Siemens likes metro/suburban trains (2024TS, Class 700), Stadler likes commuter trains and custom-built trains (FLIRT, Glasgow Subway). Although you get more with Stadler, a Siemens metro/suburban train is essentially guaranteed to work straight out of the box for decades to come, so I'm happy that they're finally producing trains for LU.
I think that CAF continuously manages to outdo itself as the worst train manufacturer in those two key areas, which has a marked impact on how reliable their trains are and how nice they are to travel on.
To be fair, the design barely changed between the 375s and 387s, except for small things like the seats, door alarms and window seals. As an old motoring adage goes, the best buy will be found amongst the last examples of a long-established design.
Indeed, the Electrostars (and Turbostars) were very successful that such little iteration needed to be made upon it. Indeed the Movia that the S Stock are part of also seems to be a very successful design. Makes it all the more amazing that the Aventras had (and are having) such a tortured introduction really.
Speaking of the earliest Electrostars, I think it's really only the bonded window glazing and occasionally the seats that gives away their age. I don't feel like they, or the S Stock, feel anywhere near as dated as their actual age.
That's why I'd like to see a UK targeted Siemens Verve, developed as a competitor to the Bombardier Aventra. The Desiro UKs were introduced in 2003 and are still running intensive services today.
Last edited:
I think part of the issue with the Aventras is the rushed change from the Electrostars and therefore supbar design and software. IIRC the 345s run on the Electrostar's MITRAC TMS because an Aventra equivalent wasn't ready yet, but the Electrostar version wasn't set up properly for the 345s, which then delayed their introduction.
I think Southeastern's refurbishment+repaint of their 375s makes them look almost brand-new and it certainly makes their ex-TL/FCC/SN 377s look tatty in comparison. I think the only parts where the S Stock is really showing its age are the seat covers and the lighting, but otherwise they feel much more modern than the 2009TS, despite being of similar vintage.
bramling
Veteran Member
In a lot of ways it’s a shame the Electrostar wasn’t continued in place of some Aventra orders. The 387 seems to have turned out to be a pretty successful train, and could quite happily IMO have formed the Greater Anglia outer suburban order at the very least.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Agreed. Southeastern’s 375 refurbishment is superb. The S stock could certainly be refreshed to a similar level.
Glad it's not just me who thinks the change from Electrostar to Aventra was unneccesary! While I think that the Aventra has turned good for TfL's services, I certainly agree that a lightly-upgraded version of the 387 (with a better PIS and a return to the 375 seats, for example) would have been a better choice for many Aventra orders - and such a common fleet would have allowed brilliant flexibility for transferring units between operators/IRBs, like the 387s have been in recent years.
But that's a topic for another thread
I don’t use the 345 often but it sounded like a much quieter 378 when I used it overground some time ago.
That's basically what it is - a longer, slightly newer, nicer 378.
But 710s don’t sound like 378s
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Glad it's not just me who thinks the change from Electrostar to Aventra was unneccesary! While I think that the Aventra has turned good for TfL's services, I certainly agree that a lightly-upgraded version of the 387 (with a better PIS and a return to the 375 seats, for example) would have been a better choice for many Aventra orders - and such a common fleet would have allowed brilliant flexibility for transferring units between operators/IRBs, like the 387s have been in recent years.
But that's a topic for another thread
I feel like electrostars look more comfortable for long journeys. Aventras interiors, from my experience suit metro train services more. But open ended carriageways feel much more spacious comparing class 350s with 710s.
I think externally aventras look better though and I’ve heard they are lighter.
Last edited:
No, because Aventras use inside-frame (big word) bogies (unlike Electrostars and the S Stock), which necessitated the development of new motors, which sound different. Some more information on the development of the Aventra and how it differs from the Electrostars can be found here.
The Electrostars are all designed for outer suburban/regional journeys (except the 378s, which are technically "Capitalstars"), whereas the 345s and 710s are designed for the inner suburban/metro-style services that they run on. The 730/0 interior is certainly very pleasant and well-suited to regional journeys.
I agree that they look better, but I still mourn the loss of cab-end gangways, as ugly as they look on the 701s/720s (TfL stuff doesn't need them because they don't couple very much), as ugly as they look. I think the 730s actually wear them quite well, to be honest. Aventras are certainly a lot lighter, partly due to their big-word fancy light bogies.
Last edited:
I find s stock glitches annoying. Such as when the orange door open indicators don’t work for one carriage. Or the internal door light doesn’t switch off. I’ve seen the latter on the 09 stock as well.
Last edited: