New tube for London stock

I'd also suggest the numbering is LU. The prototypes I'd guess never belonged to LU but Bombardier thus irrelevant other than a need to carry some identity of some sort ?

Replacement vehicles - be they main line or LU - often take up the replaced numbers.

Only "trainspotter" type OCD is really only that requires things to have unique numbers.

I've only ever heard of replacement by myth and legend and none seemed sure what occurred.

Anyone know if it be true ?

Last I saw, despite COVID19 delays, it is hoped to recover the Picc Upgrade Programme with assembly of two pre-production trains to start this August and completed by December 2022. A train driving simulator is expected before the first train arrives at Northfields depot in November 2023, to be tested out on the line during engineering hours by March 2024, and during traffic hours by February 2025. The first 2024TS train should be into passenger service by April 2025, with the last 1973TS train decommissioned in late 2026, the 2024TS fleet complete by February 2027, and the timetable upgrade to 27tph by June 2027, or 20 years after the collapse of Metronet and the start of work on these new style trains! [Underground News, April 2021, NF23/21]

I was wondering more from the point of view that fleet numbers are often used for maintenance records, and on the main line network there are usually prejudices against reusing numbers (and, yes, I can think of exceptions).

The Piccadilly line was a “Tubelines “ ppp project (JNP) all other lines came under” Metronet”

20 years isn't that bad. Scheming for A stock started in about 1938 with a couple of saloon layout trial cars in the late 40s and the first actual A stock train at the end of 1960.

I'm sure I've read previously on this site that by the time the Tubelines-era new Piccadilly line trains were cancelled, they were intended to be articulated and walk-through, and had almost reached the point of issuing an Invitation to Tender. I can't find the relevant post though.

I am absolutely certain that I read online somewhere that an Invitation to Tender was issued then withdrawn in 2010, maybe 2011 but similarly I can't find any reference to it now.

As for private sector v public sector, London Underground started planning Oyster in the 1990s while they were under the DfT and after 2003 TfL expanded it but the privatised TOCs took ages before they accepted it (2010?)

Back on topic, an article about the new trains has been published: www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/

1973 Stock has a floor height of 725mm.
can vary from low 698mm for 1938/56/59/62, up to 761mm for 1995/96.


The 1690mm door width compares favourably with ’09 & S Stocks at 1600mm, and current maximum on the Underground of 1664mm on ‘92 Stock.

I would predict the Central version would have one more trailer and one more “motor 2”; that the middle car is M on Picc. and possibly T on Central I don’t think is significant ; that sort of thing will always happen - with an even number of cars there is no single middle car; with odd numbers of x(M + T) + M + y(T + M) only 5 9 13 car get middle M, 3 7 11 etc get middle T; Siemens and LU will have figured that out.

Cynical me says I wonder if the design has actually been 100% finalised - just wondering if that middle motor for the Picc. gets to be a trailer - descoping in the interests of economy. Perhaps I be too cynical ?

I'm sure older members will be able to cite examples of 'standard'TS, 38TS, later TS, where 6 or 7 or 8 (or 9?) cars forced different perms of motors and trailers to fit lengths around different lines.

I see that article refers to the project people having worked on the main line Thameslink 700s. 700s are 50% powered axles, and each unit half (all 700s are in effect two half units coupled back to back) is MTMMTT (FLU) or MTMT (RLU) - aside from the tube stock articulation you can see this pattern of M+T pairs although the 700s aren't alternating cars.

Interesting too that this tube stock is articulated - again referring back to the 700s, one of the rival bids (Alstom) was for articulated units, it was a non-compliant bid, and ultimately failed because the heavier axle loads, exactly resulting from articulation, were either too much for NR or NR would charge the TOC too much for track access. Things have moved on quite a bit since then especially w.r.t. lightweight bogies.

EDITED tidied up and added to the earlier messy posting.

With train composition from the referenced article, I guess Picc train numbering may look like this, based upon this century's new stock deliveries:

    31001     – 32001     – 33001     – 34001    – 35001     – 34002     – 33002     – 32002     – 31002

    DM         - I              - M1          – I             - M2         - I              - M1           - I             - DM

                                                                    - 39001 if deicing?

The Bakerloo trains will be the same length and layout, so numbering could continue in the same way. The Waterloo & City can only accommodate a five-car version, which will require a unique equipment layout, maybe like:

    31X01 – 32X01 – 35X01 – 32X02 – 31X02 

But the auxiliary power converter (APC) on the middle motor will probably not be needed on such a short train, and the lack of motor 1 cars means the APC and battery will need to be carried on the driving motor cars. Alternatively, if there is no room for an APC on driving motors, perhaps a second will be needed on the middle motor for capacity and redundancy, with room where deicing equipment is not fitted for this line.

The version for the Central line will include an additional motor car and intermediate car. I understood that the cab cars were proposed to be about a metre shorter to fit current platform lengths, otherwise trains would be the same as the Piccadilly trains for staff training and spares holding. The Piccadilly motor 2 car is unique in the train, with no shoes and room for deicing and other special equipment. There can only be one such car in a train. However, I don't see the need for another motor 1 car, with APC and battery, in the train, so I suggest the additional motor car in Central line trains will be a new motor 3 car with high voltage box and shoes. This introduces a new type of motor car and therefore car numbering will probably emphasise this with a different number to the motor 2 number 5 car, e.g.:

    41001     – 42001     – 43001     – 44001     – 45001     – 46001     – 47001     – 44002     – 43002     – 42002     – 41002

    DM         - I              - M1          – I             - M2           - I             - M3          - I              - M1          - I             - DM

                                                                     - 49001 if deicing?

1992ts 133m, that should still fit on the platforms, there are a few where the rear cab is in the tunnel when the train is fully berthed (I've spent quite a bit of time in the rear cab over the last 18 months)

So if the driver needs to leave the cab they'll have to use the J Door and reach the platform via the saloon, as with the 1967ts and 1972ts.  That'll be fun at 8:30 on a Monday morning...

How will the train be dispatched if CCTV fails?  The driver won't be able to look out of the cab door to check the platform on Category Bs and they won't be able to see the stations staff giving a hand signal on Category As.  Not too clever...