Talk:London Underground 2009 Stock

Correct name for this stock

Note: there is earlier discussion at Talk:London Underground 2005 Stock.

The discussion on Talk:London_Underground_2005_Stock makes pretty clear that 2009 stock is the correct name for this stock, so I've moved them around (sorry if I've done this in an inappropriate fashion - as far as I can make out the "move" option only works if there isn't a page with the new title already, whereas in this case there was a redirect page). --Stalinism 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Just to repeat that while I don't profess any competency with getting them on Wikipedia, I've put a load of photos of the new stock up here [1] and they're all licensed in such a way that Wikipedia can use them. Tompagenet Tompagenet 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

artists impression

Iv found artists impression of the 2009 stock http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/40

Iv never been able to wrap my mind around image copy rights, is there anyway we can show that picture on the wikipedia article? Casper (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delivery by road?

The article gives the size of the stock and resulting non compatability with other tube lines as the reason why the stock is delivered by road. This cannot be the reason, as the Victoria line is not physically connected to any other deep tube line (or other tube line at all?) IIRC the only place the line meets another railway is the Network Rail line at Northumberland Park Depot. And I don't know whether there's a connection there. (None is shown on Google Earth) Britmax (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! now I think about it there may be an underground connection in the Kings Cross area. Britmax (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a connection at Finsbury Park. Forget I said anything. Britmax (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Underground 2009 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/20110715151518/http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue233HIGH.pdf to http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue233HIGH.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901221711/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23860358-new-victoria-line-trains-23-times-less-reliable-than-the-old-ones.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23860358-new-victoria-line-trains-23-times-less-reliable-than-the-old-ones.do

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Width of the trains

It looks like the train width referenced in the reference by John Hawkins is incorrect; this seems to be the more up-to-date version directly from TfL. This means the anecdote that the 09 stock can't leave the line is probably false. Tyteen4a03 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tyteen4a03: The width of a railway vehicle may be measured ain a number of ways, which often yield differing figures. It may be measured over the body panels only; over major projections such as footsteps; or over minor projections such as push buttons indicator lights. Then there is the body profile - how high up is the width measured? On most types of Tube stock, the car is wider at the bottom of the windows than it is at the edges of the roof; but the 2009 Tube stock has a noticeably flat side - the width over panels at these two heights is virtually the same, meaning that either (i) the 2009 stock is narrower at the bottom of the windows than other types; or (ii) it is wider than other types measured at the edges of the roof. The second case is more likely. Further, width is not the only factor - the length must be taken into account since this affects the outthrow of the car ends and the inthrow of the car centre when running on curved track. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

To do

Just a couple of thoughts to improve the article here - feel free to add/ignore/tell me how wrong I am

• Check the Rolling Stock Info sheets and Bombardier data (where available) to ensure that data is correct
• Check that references are still live, and finding archived versions where possible
• Proof reading design and specifications section - editing and adding information where required
• Check for additional useful references/information pages - perhaps on Metronet archived webpages
• Looking at current photos on page, and ensuring best photos are used
• Section on the depot?
• Any information on reception to this train by public - references as opposed to hearsay
• Further details from TfL on reliability of the train

Turini2 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

edited Turini2 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the maximum speed of the 2009 Stock be increased to 100 km/h (62 mph)?

In my opinion, I think that the 2009 Stock trains that run on the Victoria line should have an even higher top speed than 80 km/h (50 mph) so that they have the same max speed as the S7 and S8 Stock used on the sub-surface lines. The Piccadilly line will use the New Tube for London from 2025 and those trains will have a top speed of 100 km/h (62 mph). It is very likely that will also be used on the Bakerloo line. When all the 1972 Stock and 1973 Stock trains are scrapped, the 2009 Stock will be the slowest trains on the Tube and the max speed should be increased to 100 km/h (62 mph) so that they have the same maximum speed as all other trains on the Tube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.86.69 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Extension Of Victoria Line

The Construction will began Brixton, Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye & Nunhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.142.79 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh? -- Alarics (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's nice. Interesting, if you have a link. Britmax (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Fleet numbers

There is already a section about the fleet numbers in the article, however Turini2 is insisting that they should also be featured in the infobox. From what I have seen, no other tube stock article does this (because it is not really necessary), so I think the fleet numbers should be removed from the infobox so we can maintain consistency. TrainBusFan06 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Didn't take long to find an example where they are both in the infobox and the article - London Underground S7 and S8 Stock ! Turini2 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Turini2: Doesn't change the fact that the majority of tube stock articles do not mention them in the infobox, hence why I think its better to have a consistent approach across all articles as I have said previously. Idk what others think, but imo putting the fleet numbers in the infobox just makes it more cluttered. Thats why I wanted to discuss this matter further. TrainBusFan06 (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)