On 01 May 2021 20:29:47 +0100 (BST)
Theo wrote:
In uk.railway wrote:
The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old.
It
was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said
before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes

from ticket receipts and central government.

Wikipedia:

With the Jubilee Line Extension in mind, it was originally planned that the
1983 Stock would be heavily refurbished to run alongside the newer 1996
Stock that entered service on the Jubilee line in 1997; the plans included
replacing the single leaf doors with double doors to speed up passenger
boarding. The 1983 Stock was to be given similar interiors. This was
abandoned due to the cost being only 10% cheaper than re-equipping the line
entirely with the 1996 Stock. Then it was proposed for the 1983 Stock to be
added to the refurbished 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly line and serve the
Rayners Lane - Uxbridge section of the line. This was also abandoned on the
grounds of cost.

What cost, putting new line stickers in the vehicles? Sounds like an excuse.
There were a couple of them sitting at cockfosters for years mouldering away
then one week they vanished.

New car or refurb old banger for 90% of the cost? Your choice.

Its not just the financial cost, its the enviromental cost. Binning a few
thousand tons of train takes a large amount of energy to recycle all the
metal and no doubt the plastic and fabrics went to landfill. So in this
case I'd say refurb. Plus if they were going to run on the lightly used
uxbridge branch of the picc they wouldn't need anything done to them other
than a clean up.

Its the same excuse with the 373s, "Oh we can't find a buyer or use for them".
Well ****ing well try harder.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 22:51:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS?


D stock had rather more in common with 83ts.

The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old.
It
was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said
before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and
comes
from ticket receipts and central government.



AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do
you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very
good?


Given that it was based on the pretty successful D78, I wonder how they got
it so wrong?

There was little wrong with them from a passengers POV. I travelled on them
and found them much more pleasent than the other tired tube offerings at the
time.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail
about what was wrong with them.


Some other sources:

There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt
them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were
encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms

That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what
are they supposed to align with?

and that the doors were of single leaf design, rather then the 73TS double
doors and that the doors were significantly slower in operation than the
73TS.

They changed the door motors in the 73 stock (not an improvement IMO but I'm
sure they had their reasons) so they could have done the same with the 83.

As well as various electrical/mechanical/structural problems, one of the
reasons for the downfall of the class was the mid-carriage single-leaf
doors, clearly seen here, which extended station dwell times due to the
time it took passengers to join and alight from the carriages through the
relatively narrow door openings.

Not an issue out in the sticks as a shuttle service. And if they were to
enhance the service in the centre rather than replace old 73 stock then
they'd still speed things up regardless of the doors because there'd be less
crush to get on each train. Failing that they could always have just used
them outside rush hour.

Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On 01/05/2021 18:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Wouldn't the D stock have quite a bit in common with the 73TS?


D stock had rather more in common with 83ts.

The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old. It
was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said
before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and comes
from ticket receipts and central government.



AIUI it was pretty much the Austin Allegro of tube stock. At what point do
you stop throwing good money after bad and admit that something wasn't very
good?


You've never heard of the SPV-2000, I'm guessing.


I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail
about what was wrong with them.


Some other sources:

There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt
them for the Piccadilly Line,

[snip woes of 83ts]

I was referring to the American single car DMU "SPV-2000", as referenced by
Hounslow above.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sun, 2 May 2021 16:20:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail
about what was wrong with them.


Some other sources:

There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt
them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were
encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms

That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what
are they supposed to align with?

Future platform doors matched to later stock which wouldn't have
repeated the door pattern ?
The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see
the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of
the driver's seat on 1983TS.
snip

On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:22:31 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 16:20:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail
about what was wrong with them.


Some other sources:

There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt
them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were
encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms

That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what
are they supposed to align with?

Future platform doors matched to later stock which wouldn't have
repeated the door pattern ?

There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering
with platform doors.

The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see
the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of
the driver's seat on 1983TS.

Maybe, but thats hardly beyond the wit of man to solve.

In article , Recliner
writes
The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old.
It
was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said
before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and
comes
from ticket receipts and central government.

When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in
decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The
single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at
stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on
the line.

My understanding is that it wasn't that simple.

When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of
Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker
Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a
significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number
alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were
seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many)
open stations.

Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and
the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could
find a good use for them at an economic price.

/me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , Recliner
writes
The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old.
It
was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said
before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and
comes
from ticket receipts and central government.

When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in
decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The
single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at
stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on
the line.

My understanding is that it wasn't that simple.

When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of
Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker
Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a
significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number
alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were
seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many)
open stations.

Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and
the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could
find a good use for them at an economic price.

/me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them.


I very much doubt it: no room for diesel general sets or large traction
batteries under the floor, and completely unsuitable for NR lines. Also,
which railway would want LU Tube stock that wasn't good enough for LU? The
IoW had turned it down, too.

But why wasn't it used to replace the 72TS on the Bakerloo, just as it had
done on the Jubilee?

On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:22:31 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 16:20:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Sun, 2 May 2021 15:36:40 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I have now; Wikipedia unfortunately appears to be pretty light on detail
about what was wrong with them.


Some other sources:

There were a number of plans for their reuse, one of which was to adapt
them for the Piccadilly Line, but a number of technical problems were
encountered, not least the matter of alignment of the doors with platforms

That doesn't make any sense - the picc doesn't have platform doors so what
are they supposed to align with?

Future platform doors matched to later stock which wouldn't have
repeated the door pattern ?

There are so many curved platforms on the picc I can't see them bothering
with platform doors.

That won't stop the use of platform doors; it just requires a suitable
design.

The other door alignment problem could be the driver's ability to see
the ATO stopping mark; IIRC there was no view directly to the side of
the driver's seat on 1983TS.

Maybe, but thats hardly beyond the wit of man to solve.

Not if the place where you want to insert your window contains a
necessary structural component which would make it cheaper to build a
new vehicle.

On Mon, 3 May 2021 20:31:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , Recliner
writes
The 83 stock was scrapped when some of the vehicles were only 15 years old.
It
was a bloody scandal that no one seemed interested in. But as I've said
before, its easy to spend money with abandon when its not your own and
comes
from ticket receipts and central government.

When the trains were being designed, passenger levels on the tube were in
decline but levels picked up dramatically after the trains were built. The
single-leaf doors proved to be a problem for slow unloading and loading at
stations, the resulting increased dwell times causing numerous problems on
the line.

My understanding is that it wasn't that simple.

When the Jubilee opened, nearly all passengers were going from north of
Baker Street to south of it, or vice versa, or were changing at Baker
Street. That meant that the only station where there would be a
significant number of people boarding *and* a significant number
alighting was Baker Street itself. Therefore the single-leaf doors were
seen as reasonable since they kept the warmth in better in the (many)
open stations.

Once JLE opened, this passenger flow pattern would no longer apply and
the trains weren't suitable any more. As others have said, nobody could
find a good use for them at an economic price.

/me wonders if, today, Vivarail would have taken them.


I very much doubt it: no room for diesel general sets or large traction
batteries under the floor, and completely unsuitable for NR lines. Also,
which railway would want LU Tube stock that wasn't good enough for LU? The
IoW had turned it down, too.

But why wasn't it used to replace the 72TS on the Bakerloo, just as it had
done on the Jubilee?

Were there enough fit for use ? Reliability was a problem;
refurbishment cost for use on other lines was also not a lot cheaper
than simply buying new stock.