83TS

But what would have been the point? It would have cost a lot more than using DMs.

Correct.

As with all things on LUL seemed like a good idea until they went into the cost.

Wasn't this partially because at the time of design, there were lower levels of patronage and so TPTB decided to build trains 'on the cheap' as it were. I seem to remember that the number of compressors was lower than normal - such that a 3 car unit couldn't run alone (unless an extra compressor were fitted especially).

The problem was there were so many spare trains on the Met, the ELL was an easy choice for the A stock. The 83s could have gone to the ELL, think they would have been ok. I would have loved to see the 83 stock refurbed, the mock up looked good!

Before the 96ts was considered, the plan was to take each 3 car 1983 stock train and add 3-4 brand new cars of a similar design to the 1983 trains, and refurbishing them in the process. The new cars were either to have single doors or, the whole train would receive double doors. The cost of the new cars and conversion of the old were excessive, so the 1996 ts was born.

The 83 reburb was used on the 1973 stock in the end.

Apologies, I thought you ment refurb in their own right, not as part of the 83-96 combo.

Indeed, wrt the windows. Try and make the cars look at least similar. Except the 96 has external doors...

I never fully understood how a combo of 96-83 would work in practice because it would lead to asymetrical units if 3 cars per train were converted and marshalled at ends.

Er....? Like 7-car 38TS becoming 4 car and 3 car (with CT).?

Where's your axis of symmetry? Number of axles, number of trailers? How many DMs per mixed set? How many 'east end' units?

*Interested*.

Precisely. If only 3 cars per 6 or 7 car train were of 83 ts, and were at the ends, it would be

83-96-96+96-83-83 or something of the sort. Unless you used 4 cars of 83 stock per train, but then the introduction of the 7th car would have resulted in 83-83-96-96+96-83-83 which, whilst symetrical, would have resulted in 4 different types of car, with each pair significantly different to the other. Hold on, doesnt the 96 fleet have four types of car anyway?....

I don't think the 7 car plan had been conceived at that stage, so I guess the trains may have been formed: M83-T83-UNDM96+UNDM96-T96-M38, the other option was to keep the existing trains and add a batch 3 to the fleet. The 83ts was to be refurbed to the same design as the new third batch, with Warwick design leading the pack. It would seem to make better sense to have gone with this solution as the problems with adding to the existing trains are apparent. There are some interesting designs in Paul Moss's book 'Underground Movement' p208-213.

I'd heard that the plan for using the 1983 TS on the Piccadilly wasn't to lengthen the 1973 TS, but to provide extra trains - perhaps with the 1983 TS forming an Acton Town - Rayners Lane / Uxbridge dedicated service.

The plan with the 83ts on the Picc was indeed to provide extra trains for mainline service. The single doors as dicussed were the sticking point!

So why couldn't they be used on an Uxbridge/Rayners Lane - Acton Town service, with 73TS running on the rest of the Picc? The Uxbridge branch isn't that busy.

But that would have been only a few years after the 38TS replaced the Standard stock on the IOW. Would BR have replaced them that quickly, as it would have been a waste of money converting the 38TS?