wrote:
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?

No, light weight modern trains tend to be aluminium monocoques.

In message , at 19:49:50 on Fri, 11 Jan
2013, d remarked:
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

The main reason why UK (and TfL) fares are more is because we don't
subsidise them as much as most other places.
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
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?

No, light weight modern trains tend to be aluminium monocoques.

The bogies, wheels, axles and traction motors? Not to mention equipment
mounted on the underframe?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
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?

No, light weight modern trains tend to be aluminium monocoques.

The bogies, wheels, axles and traction motors? Not to mention equipment
mounted on the underframe?

The problem arises when the metals are in very close proximity (ie, more or
less touching), so most of those bits of steel aren't a problem.

On 12/01/2013 11:03, 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.


So, what was the problem?

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

On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
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.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

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

On 12/01/2013 14:50, 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:

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?

A Google search, which took seconds, found this.

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


If anybody cares to see some video of the 83ts on a tour and in revenue
service, then feel free to look here.

http://youtu.be/jE-Poj9zhnE

http://youtu.be/e5Njmn1BG_0



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

" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
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.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

Why? They would have had adequate capacity for that branch, which loads
less heavily than the Heathrow branch.

Roland Perry wrote:

The main reason why UK (and TfL) fares are more is because we don't
subsidise them as much as most other places.

That's not what Christian Wolmar thinks: see
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/201...ice-for-fares/

His figures from 2007 statistics:
UK EUR 0.125 per passenger km
France EUR 0.113
Germany EUR 0.105
--
Jeremy Double

In message , Recliner
wrote:
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.

Hmm, perhaps I'm misremembering and it was Uxbridge/Rayners Lane to High
Street Ken.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: