Charles Ellson wrote:
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.


Why would they have needed refurbishment to run on the Bakerloo? Just
change the line diagrams.

On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
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.

Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro
fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them
in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite
narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse.

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.

I doubt 1 window would influence structural integretary that much. They're
frame based, not monocoque.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 22:51:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:


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

I worked on Jubilee Line extension stock in a minor way! GKN Defence
(yes you read that right) were the UK company working with whichever
of the Japanese companies ( Kawasaki Heavy Industries I think) were up
against Metro-Cammell. Kawasaki had had a bad experience doing a
refurbishment project on the New York metro so didn't want to go there
again. lt was clear London Underground didn't want to split the new
build and the refurbishment contracts so our consortium priced the job
to make the new build look more attractive. As that's what happened we
assumed the others bidders had done the same. 30 years on finding a
separate company to undertake the refurbishment would be much easier
than it was in the early 90s. Had we have won the body shells would
have been made in Japan with fit out and commission at the Telford
site. A short test track next to our existing Fighting Vehicle test
track was planned. We didn't have a rail connection which seemed a bit
of a problem to me but at that time that was well above my pay grade!

On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
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.

Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro
fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them
in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite
narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse.

The doors aren't there for the convenience of the passengers.

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.

I doubt 1 window would influence structural integretary that much. They're
frame based, not monocoque.

If you have a thick piece of frame then it will be thick for a reason
and you won't be wanting to bore holes through it.
However, having now found cab photos in :-
https://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/...1983tubeStock/
there is a side view from the driver's seat.

On Tue, 4 May 2021 01:22:43 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
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.


Why would they have needed refurbishment to run on the Bakerloo? Just
change the line diagrams.

And fix all the other problems which made them unwanted on the Jubilee
Line.

On Wed, 05 May 2021 03:42:59 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
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.

Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro
fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them
in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite
narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse.

The doors aren't there for the convenience of the passengers.

The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that
led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case
you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas.

On Tue, 04 May 2021 22:33:51 +0100
Nigel Emery wrote:
than it was in the early 90s. Had we have won the body shells would
have been made in Japan

Good thing you didn't then.

site. A short test track next to our existing Fighting Vehicle test
track was planned. We didn't have a rail connection which seemed a bit
of a problem to me but at that time that was well above my pay grade!

Wasn't a problem for the 2009 stock that was idiotically made too big** to fit
on the piccadilly line so couldn't be taken to the victoria by rail and so
had to be bunged on the back of lorries to jam up north london roads
instead.

** Yet the design wastes huge amounts of space internally by pushing the seats
4 or 5 inches inwards from the windows with a ledge.

On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:35:13 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:


Good thing you didn't then.

No argument from me there! The irony was having at that point build
300 or so Warrior AVFs we'd have had no problem with the aluminium
welding!

On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:32:03 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2021 03:42:59 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2021 01:46:52 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2021 08:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
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.

Why spend the money on trivia when there are far better uses for it. Retro
fitting platform doors is probably a lot more expensive that designing them
in from the start. Plus a lot of victoria/edwardian tube platforms are quite
narrow and adding platform doors would make things even worse.

The doors aren't there for the convenience of the passengers.

The doors are meant to be a safety feature. I'm not sure a safety feature that
led to even more crush loading in a station would be signed off. In case
you hadn't noticed all the JLE stations have huge platform areas.

Platform doors on the Underground are part of the environmental
control of more recent tube sections; increased safety is a secondary
benefit. In case you hadn't noticed, most Jubilee Line stations (tube
or surface including some stations on the Stratford extension) don't
have platform doors or unusually wide platforms.

On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:35:13 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2021 22:33:51 +0100
Nigel Emery wrote:
than it was in the early 90s. Had we have won the body shells would
have been made in Japan

Good thing you didn't then.

site. A short test track next to our existing Fighting Vehicle test
track was planned. We didn't have a rail connection which seemed a bit
of a problem to me but at that time that was well above my pay grade!

Wasn't a problem for the 2009 stock that was idiotically made too big** to fit
on the piccadilly line

It was actually made to fit the Victoria Line.
snip