Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 11:28:49 GMT
Anyone has an idea of how the 83ts would have looked like if it survived and got refurbed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 12:23:17 GMT
Like the 96, at least that was the plan AFAIK. That being the case, you can see why the cost was prohibitive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 14:07:09 GMT
Oh, that wasn't completely what I meant, but OK. I meant more like if they didn't get the 96ts, but bought 83ts MK3, and what changes would have been made. I assume if they had done this, the 83s would be refurbed after the d78?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 14:44:23 GMT
I'm pretty sure Iv'e seen a picture of a mock up 83 refurbishment, think it was in the book 'moving metropolis' basicly looked the same as the 96's interior designed by warrick design consultants
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 11, 2009 16:17:19 GMT
Unfortunately, "The Moving Metropolis" (2001) doesn't show pictures of an '83 Stock refurbishment mock-up.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 11, 2009 16:37:10 GMT
No, the 1983 reburb would have looked like the 1973 refurb because that's were the idea came from. There is a section in Paul Moss' Underground Movement about the 1996 and 1973 refurb with the 1983 stock mock up in it.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 11, 2009 16:45:46 GMT
Would it basically have involved changing the middle portion of each car from the doors to something like the 73ts?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 11, 2009 17:03:23 GMT
Yes, the seating would have gone all longitudinal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 11, 2009 17:35:40 GMT
Apologies, ajax and metman there IS indeed a picture of the '83 Stock refurb mock-up in "UndergrounD Movement" (Paul Moss, 2000) tinyurl.com/mr8vxa |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 11, 2009 17:42:46 GMT
I meant in terms of the bodywork; that picture makes it look though that single doors were retained along with the three middle windows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 17:48:00 GMT
The more I look at that picture the more I think that the scrapping of those trains was a terrible waste. Surely they could have been used somewhere, even with the single doors (D Stock are pretty OK with it).
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 11, 2009 19:00:22 GMT
Could have been used as shuttle stock? In fantasy-tube-land they would have suited Ongar, Aldwych and South Acton.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 11, 2009 19:33:22 GMT
They should have been used on the Picc in my opinion. I would like to know how restrictive the single doors would have been. The problem was the middle cab ends which would further restict the flow of passengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 11, 2009 21:43:09 GMT
I think some 83TS could have been used on the Picc between Acton Town and Rayners Lane/Uxbridge, so a more frequent service could have run to Heathrow with 73TS. The doors wouldn't have mattered, as they wouldn't have run through central London, or on Heathrow services. 83TS could also have run on the Chesham shuttle.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 11, 2009 22:02:45 GMT
They wouldn't fit in the Chalfont bay platform, remember, they cannot run in service as a 3 car unit. I doubt the 83ts would have gone down well in Chesham!  |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 11, 2009 22:12:00 GMT
They wouldn't fit in the Chalfont bay platform, remember, they cannot run in service as a 3 car unit. What would have had to be done to an 83TS unit so it could run on its own? If they were refurbished, couldn't they have been modified to run on their own? |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jun 11, 2009 22:14:14 GMT
They wouldn't fit in the Chalfont bay platform, remember, they cannot run in service as a 3 car unit. What would have had to be done to an 83TS unit so it could run on its own? If they were refurbished, couldn't they have been modified to run on their own? 2nd compressor? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 11, 2009 22:15:15 GMT
They would need a second compressor, maybe a second motor generator and other extra braking/auxillary systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Jun 12, 2009 2:35:11 GMT
remember, they cannot run in service as a 3 car unit. I guess that would have kept the 83s from operating on the Waterloo and City? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 12, 2009 7:13:59 GMT
Most likely! They would need to be 4 cars long although they probably won't fit in the platforms, depot and most importantly the lift down!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2009 23:40:00 GMT
They would need a second compressor, maybe a second motor generator and other extra braking/auxillary systems. No, only a second compressor. A 3 car unit already had 2 MA's and everything else needed in each DM. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 13, 2009 15:24:15 GMT
I'm sure most agree 83 stock scrapping was a waste ...
... but the time and event line to get to the scrapping point is well known and looking back on what actually did happen - as opposed to what might have happened -I don't think there was much else could be done. None of us with 20:20 hindsight vision could have predicted what did happen after c.1980 when the 83 stock must have specified.
However you look at 83 stock, they would always be non standard on any line today. Sure the idea of using them on shuttles looks nice, but they would still introduce a lot of inflexibitly. And probably near double the cost of engineering things like spare trains and spares parts holdings, and operating things like training new drivers. All the tube lines today are single stock operated (discounting replacement phases e.g. 67 -> 09) so all this would apply wherever you put them.
Hindsight might suggest a more coherent approach to the entire Jubilee line might have eliminated the problem, but then you are talking about 60+ years of ministerial indecision and politcal procrastination. Even if the Jubilee had been completed along immediate post WW2 ideas under any of the various names the chances are it we would be talking about something else they'd got wrong.
Never mind issues about single stock type, single leaf doors, reliability and the rest - IMHO its a good job they did rid the Jubilee of them as the last step of the ATO upgade [q.v.] relies on releasing the 96 stock traction pack to its full potential. If you had 83 stock still about, you'd not be able to do that, its a different technology. Sure you can ATO DC motor trains and sure you can uprate them, but the total 96 stock solution is much much simpler.
W&C sounds nice but is littered with obstacles - one of which is that the City Corporation [or whatever the correct name is] funded the W&C 92 stock and /probably/ has some commitment to retain etched in stone irrespective of it being mainline (nee NSE) or LU operated.
Even IOW sounded nice ... but I'm sure there were equally practical objections or expensive solutions there too.
But a question.
I read the comments about compressors. Which cars were the compressors on ? If you were talking about a small fleet not using the entire 83 stock, could it not be possible to make short 2/3-car units by juggling car permutations in each set rather rather than shifting / adding physical compressor locations ? Or were they all on the trailers ?
--
Nick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2009 17:56:53 GMT
Compressors are on the trailer cars, so a 3 car 83 has it's compressor in the middle car. One solutrion that could have worked was scrap half the fleet save the compressors from them and and fit the saved compressor into the trailer of remaining units.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 21, 2009 16:22:41 GMT
Compressors are on the trailer cars, so a 3 car 83 has it's compressor in the middle car. One solutrion that could have worked was scrap half the fleet save the compressors from them and and fit the saved compressor into the trailer of remaining units. I assume there is no space on the motor cars ... or was there a deliberate decison when new to put the compressor on the trialer mid-way between the two motors ? -- Nick |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 21, 2009 17:23:29 GMT
I think it was in keeping with current ideas. From the A stock onwards, compressors were provided on the trailer cars only. The C stock was the same. The 73 and D stocks were formed of 2 x 3car sets with each having a compressor, so 2 units were needed for a train (double enders excluded!).
I would imagine space was a little tight on the motor cars too!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 21, 2009 17:57:44 GMT
It also spreads weight over all axels of the train to have the compressors on the trailer cars. Something only really possible with unit stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 21, 2009 19:20:36 GMT
The 73 and D stocks were formed of 2 x 3car sets with each having a compressor, so 2 units were needed for a train (double enders excluded!). Both stocks worked as single units at one time or another - on the Aldwych branch and the East London line respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 22, 2009 12:35:14 GMT
Both stocks worked as single units at one time or another - on the Aldwych branch and the East London line respectively. But a double ended unit has to be used if you are running a 3-car unit on its own, so the single ended units only need one compressor. Double ended units have two compressors so that they can run on their own. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 22, 2009 13:34:13 GMT
I think it was in keeping with current ideas. From the A stock onwards, compressors were provided on the trailer cars only. The C stock was the same. The 73 and D stocks were formed of 2 x 3car sets with each having a compressor, so 2 units were needed for a train (double enders excluded!). Thanks, I knew that about A and C, but I did not know it about 73 and D. Now that I do, 83s make perfect sense to follow in that trend. -- Nick |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 22, 2009 16:22:09 GMT
It would have made more sense to have two compressors on 83TS trailers, as other double ended 3-car units have two compressors. But they probably thought that 83TS would only ever run on the Jubilee, and always as 6-car so it didn't matter.
|
|
