Talk:London Underground 1992 Stock

Dates?

i somehow dont think that 'pre-2006 network south-east livery' can be right, as privatisation that got rid of network south east happend pre 2000 to my knowledge Willow177 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) sorry, im wrong, but surely a bit of dis ambiguation would be appropriate Willow177 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ABB

I have to say I'm a bit confused by ABB. Adtranz, according to that article's page, was formed from a merger of ABB Henschel and AEG. The former links to Henschel & Son. However, the ABB article: Asea Brown Boveri talks of a company that still exists. Could someone explain to me, probably in short words and plenty of patience, what happened here? Did ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) have a subsidiary called ABB Henschel that is actually the people who made the 1992 stock, and this was then absorbed into Adtranz? Tompagenet 09:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Max Speed

Is 130km/h (80mph) really the max speed - this is very fast for tube stock - have we got a source? Tompagenet 09:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

File:1992refresh.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1992refresh.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Announcer system nickname

The 'Sonya' name is mentioned in the 2012 BBC series The Tube about the underground system in an informal interview with the maintenance staff. The member of staff informs the viewer of the nickname and why it is so called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Underground 1992 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/20131214054804/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1626.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1626.aspx

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) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Underground 1992 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/20141011213329/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/campaign/new-tube-for-london?cid=fs228 to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/campaign/new-tube-for-london?cid=fs228
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140330145219/http://origin.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1626.aspx to http://origin.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1626.aspx

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) 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that the article British Rail Class 482 be merged into this article. They are the same train and a lot of the information on the Class 482 article is duplicate. ElshadK (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Electrification

Although it's four rails, the so-called "fourth rail" is actually the one in the middle, which is the return (-210 V DC) rail. The live (+420 V DC) rail is actually the third rail, which is why it should be all rail capable, and this applies to all LU stock. Edgar Searle (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is it claimed that the fourth rail is not the one on the middle? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is about my revert. There is a consensus on wiki and in industry to use the term "fourth rail", mostly as a contrast to "third rail" where the running rails are used as a current return path. It's technically correct to say "third and fourth rail" as both rails are required for its operation, but the 1992 stock cannot operate on "third-rail" electrified track. I would expect "third and fourth rail" to mean the stock is capable of either. Just as "third rail" implies the existence of two others, "fourth rail" implies the existence of three others. ~SpK 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here guys, I found this on the web at Track & Traction Current, and it says the third rail is the positive/live rail (+420 V DC) along the side of the track, 3 inches (76 millimetres) higher than the running rails, and the fourth rail is the negative/return rail (-210 V DC) mounted centrally between the two running rails, 1.5 inches (38.1 millimetres) higher than the running rails. Edgar Searle (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, we don't disagree on that - London Underground has used the outside positive/centre negative system for well over 100 years (although some lines weren't converted to that system until the 1930s, and some (such as the Bakerloo beyond Queen's Park) have the running rails electrically bonded to the centre rail for compatibility with NR trains that share the route) - but your original post says Although it's four rails, the so-called "fourth rail" is actually the one in the middle so where is that being doubted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Movement Of 1992 Stock

Central Line: The 2024 Stock Will Replace The 1992 Stock. The 1992 Stock Will Be Moved To Bakerloo Line & Run Along With 1972 & 1973 Stock In 2028.
Waterloo & City Line: The 2024 Stock Will Replace The 1992 Stock. The 1992 Stock Will Be Converted & Moved To Isle Of Dogs In 2030. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.142.79 (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources, per the policy on verifiability. Otherwise, it is merely guesswork, with the possibility of crystal-ball gazing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)