Talk:London Underground 1996 Stock

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Transport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Trains: in UK Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

I've updated a few things that were incorrect such as the JL /NL build sequence. Also added detail on the train car layout, nubering and design designations. There were also a few details missing about the 7th car build that i've added.

I'll be updating again shortly with some additional info and Alstom document references.

Where are you sourcing this information from - it doesn't seem very reliable. You say the 2005-built seventh cars and the four new sets were built at "Metro Cammell's Wandworth Heath". The company was bought out a long time ago by Alstom (formerly GEC-Alsthom), and I recall the Washwood Heath factory was closed after the 390 Pendolinos has been finished.

talk) 17:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Although Wikipedia frowns upon comments within the article, I seem to be unable to edit the discussion page. I am reluctant to register due to my observations on unrelated pages containing potentially nationally security sensitive information. The correct information will be posted in the next day or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.167.74 (talk • contribs)

At the same time as this comment a {{disputed}} tag was added to the article. Although this comment does not give any indication of what is disputed, the edit summary said - "How anybody can assume that stock built in 1996 is older than stock built in 1995 escapes me". Thryduulf 11:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inacuracy lay over the modus operandi of the traction system. The revised material has been added. During research of some of the finer details, I stumbled across the

copyrighted

web site from which the original material had clearly been stolen - almost word for word. As no copyright acknowledgement was included, I believe that this violates wikipedia's stated copyright policy. The copied article had got it totally the wrong way round and completely missed the reason for the difference.

I've just made a pretty major edit to this article, because the section on traction control made some elementary mistakes with reference to 1996/1995 tube stock (although it was strong on electrical engineering). It is a documented fact that 1996 TS uses a 3-phase AC drive controlled by a GTO thyristor, while 1995 TS uses a 3-phase AC drive controlled by an IGBT. See pages 15 and 13 of London Underground's official rolling stock spec guide - [1]. The previous edition of the article claimed that 1995 TS ran on DC with a GTO thyristor and 1996 TS ran on AC with an IGBT. This is not true (1992 TS on the central line is DC with a GTO thyristor).

I know it's confusing that 1996 TS is older in traction technology terms than 1995 TS, a situation that arose because the former's spec was frozen in 1991 (because it was commissioned for the JLE). But it's true, and this article needs to reflect the facts. 1996 TS, like the 465s/365s it shares a traction system with, makes the funny whiny noise because of the chopping action of the GTO thyristor. 1995 TS doesn't because the IGBT is smoother. Similarly, new AC mainline trains like Electrostars don't because they also use IGBTs.

BTW, I'm not a qualified electrical engineer, so if any of the explanation of traction systems is off then feel free to fix it - however, please keep the facts on the trains' actual spec correct!--Stalinism 12:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Underground 1996 Stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605002808/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/transforming-the-tube-brochure.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/transforming-the-tube-brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 96 stock no longer has tripcocks fitted, there are also few remaining trainstops on the line only at safety critical locations and these are to stop engineering trains if necessary. Furthermore, as previously edited, LU refer to the two types of trailer cars as TC and STC (whilst the DM and UNDM omit the C). Can I reasonably source any of this fact, not really. Am I that bothered, equally not really, but thought it worth flagging. Not amending myself as they just get reverted, but they are (current at least) fact. Xeepo (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

Verifiability is a core content policy, which should not be ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Lol. Who needs facts right? Last edit I ever make. Xeepo (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]