Talk:London Underground 1996 Stock

message: 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. DAB Wikis (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Few things to add

message: 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 - . 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)
thread_title: Traction control - 1995/1996 TS differences

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: has expanded and twice re-added  after removal. Apart from being utterly trivial, and violating WP:BLP in naming living people without providing a source, the sources that are used, being YouTube in every single case, go against WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:NOR. The WP:NOR policy is also violated where comparisons are made between dot-matrix and audible announcements, and between up to four different audible systems. The tone (such as "certain people may claim") is also very much against WP:NPOV and altogether it should not be in the article at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcements 

message: 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)
replies: text: Verifiability is a core content policy, which should not be ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Who needs facts right? Last edit I ever make. Xeepo (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few Amends