On 10/01/2013 22:30, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?



Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

Presumably both statements are true (as each of these MetCam designs would
have evolved from its predecessor) but apart from the single-leaf doors,
what else did do the D and 83 share?

The 83ts looked like the Tube version of a D78. Even the cabs and
controls looked very similar.

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

Space constraints, I think. The 83TS was not a bad train from an
operational perspective, AIUI, but it was not the right train for tube
conditions.







--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 11/01/2013 19:59, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like
a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by
caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case
when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put
up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro
system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?


Where there's life there's hope. :-)

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

wrote:
In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:16:12 +0000, wrote:

The 83ts looked like the Tube version of a D78. Even the cabs and
controls looked very similar.

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

What's the address?

--
jhk

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:50:35 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:42:55 +0100, Jarle H Knudsen
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:16:12 +0000, wrote:

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

What's the address?

A Google search, which took seconds, found this.

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/

Thanks

That did not show up on the first three pages when I searched.

--
jhk

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message
,
Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to
another line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the
mechanical reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

Hardly!

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

Possible.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

That last issue would preclude the use of any tube stock on the Island in
future, wouldn't it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel