metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 7, 2008 1:48:26 GMT
I am well aware that some 83 stock batch II trains were to be used on the Picc, but why were they decided against? There were thoughts of rebuilding their single doors to doubles-which would have been expensive! Any other reasons?
If the 83ts was used, how would they have fitted in with the 73s? They weren't compatable - did they have similar dimensions, performance or reliability(unlikely)?
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Mar 7, 2008 5:41:05 GMT
It might be more cost effective to buy new trains in favor of refurbishing the 83s.
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 7, 2008 8:55:45 GMT
I think it was the doors that was the major problem - not just the conversion to twin leaf (which would have been a huge undertaking in itself) but the question of where the door openings would be relative to the 73TS alignment at platforms.
I doubt that reliability would have been a problem - I don't recall the 83TS being renowned as unreliable.
Not sure about dimensions though; but were they not built to the same lengths as D78 so each car longer than a 73TS equivalent? Can't find me book on the subject at the moment ......
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 7, 2008 20:30:42 GMT
I thought the 83ts was very similar to the 73ts, except with single doors and an extra window in the centre bay! Maybe Tubeprune has the dimensions of the 83ts?
(or we can measure the DM tomorrow!!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by auxsetreq on Mar 7, 2008 22:25:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Mar 8, 2008 16:27:57 GMT
They should have used the 1983 stock between Acton Town and Rayners Lane. Then, more 1973 stock would have been avalible for increased services to Heathrow. Using 1983s to Heathrow without rebuilding tham would have been a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Mar 8, 2008 19:06:40 GMT
In the early '90's there were very ambitious plans to increase services on the Picc. At one point the service was increased to 27 trains/hour. The impact on the service was terrible and eventually the service was reduced to 24 trains per hour. 24 trains/hour actually delivered a better practial throughput than 27 trains/hour. The infrastructure/signalling wasn't capable of more than 24 trains/hour.
Since then they have dramatically improved the reliability of the line, but........ with more and more customers it has taken longer for trains to get around the line.
The upshot of all this was that there were/are enough 1973 tube stock trains and the '83ts wasn't needed.
However they all carried Donor cards and have helped other trains have a long and happy life though the wonders of organ (component) transplants!
|
|
|
|
Post by undergroundernie on Mar 8, 2008 19:16:23 GMT
Wasnt the concept of 73ts that the had widened double leaf doors to accommodate airport users with luggage? so why in a later stock decide to revert back to single leaf doors with the effect of slowing boarding and alighting times and making the service less efficient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2008 23:12:04 GMT
Wasnt the concept of 73ts that the had widened double leaf doors to accommodate airport users with luggage? so why in a later stock decide to revert back to single leaf doors with the effect of slowing boarding and alighting times and making the service less efficient. Because the Jubilee doesn't serve an airport. Also, at the time, traffic on the Underground was the lowest ever. Now, more than twice as many people use the network as compared with the early 1980's. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Mar 8, 2008 23:21:16 GMT
And that's essentially the same reason why D stock trains (which the 83ts are of course directly related to) only have single leaf doors.
|
|
