(umpston) wrote in message . com...
in, because they were not much good in their original configuration -
that is why they were withdrawn so young and not cascaded to other
lines. The additional cost of maintaining them, or for renting
storage space in a secure location, would probably have been more than
the extra cost of moving them by road now. One driving-motor has been

Then why didn't they just give them away? I'm sure the IOW would have prefered
something built in 86 to something built in 38! And since passenger levels arn't
exactly at crush level down there I don't think the single leaf doors would
be a problem.

preserved, surely there is no need for any more of the most useless
tube-stock in recent history.

WHy not preserve some? What use is 1 DM anyway , you want at least a 3 car
train otherwise you'll never be able to take it out for a run.

B2003

(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(umpston) wrote in message . com...
in, because they were not much good in their original configuration -
that is why they were withdrawn so young and not cascaded to other
lines. The additional cost of maintaining them, or for renting
storage space in a secure location, would probably have been more than
the extra cost of moving them by road now. One driving-motor has been

Then why didn't they just give them away? I'm sure the IOW would have prefered
something built in 86 to something built in 38! And since passenger levels
arn't exactly at crush level down there I don't think the single leaf doors
would be a problem.

Single leaf doors might not be a problem but the poor reliability
record of the '83 stock might well be. Island Line are justifiably
proud of their excellent reliability record achieved with the '38
stock.

preserved, surely there is no need for any more of the most useless
tube-stock in recent history.

Another poster has said this description is unfair - ok - I'm prepared
to modify it to 'least useful'. Is it not significant that none of
these units are being retained even for engineering use?

WHy not preserve some? What use is 1 DM anyway , you want at least a 3 car
train otherwise you'll never be able to take it out for a run.

1 car is enough to put on display, and the LT museum has much better
candidates ('Standard' stock and Q-stock spring to mind) for eventual
restoration to running order - but their resources are limited.

Nobody else wants them. If you disagree why don't you buy one?
After almost a year they are still being advertised by a dealer - I'm
sure you'd get a good price.
See: http://www.carservicesukltd.com/83stock.htm

(umpston) wrote in message om...
1 car is enough to put on display, and the LT museum has much better
candidates ('Standard' stock and Q-stock spring to mind) for eventual
restoration to running order - but their resources are limited.

What exactly is "better" about them? Every train type is equally valuable.

Nobody else wants them. If you disagree why don't you buy one?
After almost a year they are still being advertised by a dealer - I'm
sure you'd get a good price.

Not being in the railway preservation business might make that a bit tricky.
Anyway , are you saying that anyone who thinks anything should be preserved
for posterity should go out and buy an example? If so then I presume you
already own your own castle and suchlike?

B2003

"umpston" wrote in message
m...

After almost a year they are still being advertised
by a dealer - I'm sure you'd get a good price.
See: http://www.carservicesukltd.com/83stock.htm

Do you think they take Oyster Prepay?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(umpston) wrote in message om...
1 car is enough to put on display, and the LT museum has much better
candidates ('Standard' stock and Q-stock spring to mind) for eventual
restoration to running order - but their resources are limited.

What exactly is "better" about them? Every train type is equally valuable.

Nobody else wants them. If you disagree why don't you buy one?
After almost a year they are still being advertised by a dealer - I'm
sure you'd get a good price.

Not being in the railway preservation business might make that a bit tricky.
Anyway , are you saying that anyone who thinks anything should be preserved
for posterity should go out and buy an example?

Yes I am - that is the history of the railway preservation movement.
If enough people want it you will be able to raise the money. If it
had been left to the authorities we would only have a small fraction
of what has been saved. And fair enough too - public money is better
spent on new infrastructure, leave the old stuff to people who love it
and understand it.

If so then I presume you
already own your own castle and suchlike?

No castle but, as a member of a preservation group, I do have a share
in a few old trains. We don't want any '83s but if you do manage to
save one I wish you the best of luck with it.

(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(umpston) wrote in message om...
1 car is enough to put on display, and the LT museum has much better
candidates ('Standard' stock and Q-stock spring to mind) for eventual
restoration to running order - but their resources are limited.

What exactly is "better" about them? Every train type is equally valuable.

No they are not! Some are successful designs with long working lives.
The '83 stock was an interesting and innovative design but was not as
successful in service as most of its predecessors - as for its
successors, time will tell.

(umpston) wrote in message . com...
(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(umpston) wrote in message om...
1 car is enough to put on display, and the LT museum has much better
candidates ('Standard' stock and Q-stock spring to mind) for eventual
restoration to running order - but their resources are limited.

What exactly is "better" about them? Every train type is equally valuable.

No they are not! Some are successful designs with long working lives.
The '83 stock was an interesting and innovative design but was not as
successful in service as most of its predecessors - as for its
successors, time will tell.

If you use that argument then you might as well say that most steam locos
built by BR are a waste of time to preserve since some had a working life
of only 10 years before being replaced by diesel. And just because something
has been used for a long time doesn't mean its any good. The Met line A stock
has been running for 40 years but in my opinion its an ugly train and due
to its lousy acceleration , totally unsuited to working on a metro system.
God knows what the traction designers were thinking.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
The Met line A stock
has been running for 40 years but in my opinion its an ugly train and due
to its lousy acceleration , totally unsuited to working on a metro system.
God knows what the traction designers were thinking.

From a passenger perspective it's a dream, compared to the 'C' or 'D' stock.
Remember it's designed primarily for a main line railway, not a metro
system. It only really needs metro-style performance south of Finchley Road.
Now if only they'd spent some money on the bogies when they refurbished them
......

(Boltar) wrote in message . com...

What exactly is "better" about them? Every train type is equally valuable.

No they are not! Some are successful designs with long working lives.
The '83 stock was an interesting and innovative design but was not as
successful in service as most of its predecessors - as for its
successors, time will tell.

If you use that argument then you might as well say that most steam locos
built by BR are a waste of time to preserve since some had a working life
of only 10 years before being replaced by diesel.

Fair point, - but it is also significant that there are only two BR
Standards in the National Collection (a Britannia and a 9F). The many
other preserved examples only survived because people went out and
bought them (Dai Woodham especially - what a happy accident!).

And just because something
has been used for a long time doesn't mean its any good. The Met line A stock
has been running for 40 years but in my opinion its an ugly train and due
to its lousy acceleration , totally unsuited to working on a metro system.
God knows what the traction designers were thinking.

Ugliness has little relationship to utility - or not in this field
anyway! A-stock was built for the Met 'main line', which is largely
in suburbia with less frequent stops than elsewhere on the LU system.
Presumably it was designed with that in mind. The A-stock has played
a much bigger part in the lives of most Londoners than the '83-stock
so would be a better candidate for preserving a whole train.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message k...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
The Met line A stock
has been running for 40 years but in my opinion its an ugly train and due
to its lousy acceleration , totally unsuited to working on a metro system.
God knows what the traction designers were thinking.

From a passenger perspective it's a dream, compared to the 'C' or 'D' stock.
Remember it's designed primarily for a main line railway, not a metro
system. It only really needs metro-style performance south of Finchley Road.
Now if only they'd spent some money on the bogies when they refurbished them
.....

That may be true , but theres no reason it couldn't have an ok top speed AND
good acceleration. After all , it tops out at 60mph apparently, thats hardly
going to break any records (southern regions EMUs of the period went much
faster) so its not like its geared for flat out high speed running.

B2003