History of the 1983 Tube Stock ~ London Underground's unfortunate failure (Obscure Offerings Ep. 15)

The London Underground 1983 stock was introduced to the Jubilee Line in 1984, though sadly they were very unreliable and only ran in service for 14 years. Their last run was in 1998 and, despite still being fairly young, most of the coaches were scrapped.
(Information Sources):
www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Rol...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...
www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/s...
(Image Credits):
6089Gardener (Flickr)
Alan Smith (Flickr)
Beechwood Photography (Flickr)
Brian Creasey (Flickr)
City Transport Info (Flickr)
Don Constance (Flickr)
Ee20213 (Flickr)
Frank Struben (Flickr)
Ian Docwra (Flickr)
Keith Valla (Flickr)
John Law (Flickr)
Martyn Hilbert (Flickr)
MartynL1804 (Flickr)
Metromadme (Flickr)
Michael Wadman (Flickr)
Portemolitor (Flickr)
Southern Reg (Flickr)
SW11 Simon (Flickr)
Thameside287 (Flickr)
(1996 tube stock footage ~ Voxley19):
• London Underground Jub...

[@chrisrowe7503]

I spoke to someone a few years ago who was part of the group that decided the 1983 stock had to go. These were cheaply built, reconditioned units and it was a miracle they lasted the 14 years that they did. The traction motors were built using left over parts of The Piccadilly line’s traction motors. Whoever suggested the single leaf door signed these unit’s death warrants. They worked on the D Stock yet that’s because the D Stock were 4 times taller and bigger. The back up generators regularly failed. Yet again as these were reconditioned rather than built from new. I lived in Queensbury so used to take the 1983 stock to school in the mornings. They were nippy things but they should not have felt, looked and sounded the way they did at only 14 years old.

[@mikeoas]

My husband loves the design of the 1983 tube stock, externally they are smart and modern and share design elements of the D stock, if they had similar traction motors of the 73 stock and double.doors they would have been far more reliable

[@iman2341]

Fun fact, the 1996 stock has the same traction control systems as the Eurostar Class 373s and sound nearly identical on startup! :P

[@ashleyjiscool]

Yeah now I think about it

[@ianmcclavin]

Use of 1983 Stock on the Isle of Wight was ruled out due to the tight curvature of the plstform at Ryde Esplanade, resulting potentially in extra large gaps between train doors and platform, although the current situation with the 484's isn't that much better!

[@TrainBusFan06]

Thats quite unfortunate however its probably as a result of the extremely long cars, which proved to significantly restrict where the 83 stock could run...

[@ashleyjiscool]

Ironically, the 1983 stock was replaced before THE 1959 STOCK

[@kwlkid85]

And technically the 1938 stock

[@MrFiver1111]

Meanwhile 1972 bakerloo

[@ianmcclavin]

Yes, the 1983 Stock only lasted about 12 or 13 years in service. The first batch were destined for the scrapyard, but the 2nd batch were hopefully to be earmarked for conversion to make them compatible with the 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly Line, but this was not proceeded with, and most of them hot turned into can openers! A handful of carriages have become art studios on the severed bridge abutments near Shoreditch High Street Overground Station, and a carriage is still used as a mock up at the "West Ashfield" training centre.

[@DKS225]

It's interesting to note that The D78 stock outlasted The TS83 Stock by nearly 20 years. On a Side note the reason why The Isle of Wight uses Ex LUL Stock and not mainline stock after the island's last remaining main line between Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin was electrified is due to the restricted clearance through the tunnel under Ryde Esplanade when the tracks were raised due to the third rail shorting out during times of heavy rain on the island.

[@iron1349]

I like how the shortest London tube train is based on a design that was refurbished and runs the Island line

[@Adam-pu6jg]

There was also a plan to transfer the 83TS to the Bakerloo line, and LU actually test ran a train through the Bakerloo line south of Baker Street. Unfortunately, it kept catching the tunnel walls!

[@oludotunjohnshowemimo434]

Big mistake to copy the D Stock design to the 1983 stock, including the single leaf doors. What were the LT bosses thinking? It prematurely killed their service on the Jubilee line. It was constantly bugged with technical problems and long boarding and alighting times.

[@Wildlifesupernannyfan]

FUN FACT!!!! The 1996 was made in 1996 1998 2005 And sister to 1995 stock of Northan line. The 1995 stock was made in 1996,1998/99 and the millennium. 1995 stock: 6 carriage trains 1996 stock: 7 stock trains. Why did the 1983 stock get scrapped at just 16 years old!!!!? That's too young for a train.

[@oludotunjohnshowemimo434]

stupid move to use the single leaf on them, it killed their service life prematurely as well as being constantly bugged with problems and very unreliable. Only the ex District line D78 got away with the single leaf doors

[@WelutonSnowR179]

And the R110A and B in new york:8 years old

[@chrisrowe7503]

The problem with the 1983 stock was not only the doors. They were built using spare and reconditioned parts from the 1973 stock. The traction motors were very poorly built and failed on a regular basis, the backup emergency lights also regularly failed and the collection shoes regularly failed to pick up electric current from the third rail. Although TFL or London Transport as they were known as then wouldn't admit to it, they deliberately built these as a stop gap until the Jubilee Line extension was completed. They wouldn't want to build trains this early, only for them to look a state for when they opened up the extension. They also needed stock to be compatible for the new platform doors which they didn't have the technology for at the time. So it was simple. Do a quick copy of the D Stock and use cheap steel and reconditioned parts for it to run. Once the extension was near completion, they then paid up for the 1996 stock. They planned to refurbish these and use them in conjunction with the 1973 stock on The Piccadilly Line yet in the end, that was deemed as too costly and not worth the hassle. Had the 1938 stock not have become so unreliable and aged, they would have kept 1972 stock on The Jubilee Line until the extension was opened. The 1983 stock was never built to last. They are to this day the shortest ever stock to have seen service on LU. Apart from the 1986 stock although they were only ever built as a prototype and a base design for the 1992 stock.

[@v52gc]

No

[@williamerazo3921]

38 stock needed to go. Over 50 years is not good for any rail car

[@timstrainvideos142]

excellent video

[@PSYCHIC_PSYCHO]

One bizarre characteristic of the 1983 TS trains is that when running through deep level Tube tunnels one would get a waft of smell entering the passenger saloon areas which smelt like smoked barbecued and chargrilled meat, entering via the open glazed ventilator of the emergency exit doors.

[@AymanTravelTransport]

Meanwhile, tube stock a decade older (1972 and 1973) are still going strong 25 years after their younger cousins were withdrawn, with no sign of a replacement (NTFL) even being built yet.

[@kwlkid85]

The first NTFL train has been built and is in testing. 1973 stock days are numbered but there's still no funding been approved for the 1972 stock.

[@williamerazo3921]

I like the design. It’s clean

[@supertrains156.66]

I love that train sim world is the vid bc this KZbinr might not got a lot of reference photos

[@muhammadfadhiil5992]

What will you discuss after the 1983 Stock?

[@jasanand5597]

District and jubilee lines! 3:59

[@oludotunjohnshowemimo434]

Big mistake to copy the D78 stock design on the 1983 stock, especially the single leaf doors it killed their service prematurely. Only the D78 got away with the single leaf doors. It was constantly bugged with problems.

[@stthecat3935]

And thats why all new trains built after the 1983 stock order was completed was not designed by London Underground themselves, because apparently TfL is sh*t at designing their own rolling stock

[@simonwinter8839]

Does anyone know why the single leaf door 1983 "tube" stock didn't go to the Isle of Wight? I'm sure the present ex District line stock involved trackside hight adjustments that the smaller trains wouldn't have required. Anyone know ?

[@DC4260Productions]

They already had the 1938 stock running on the Island Line before the '83 stock was withdrawn.

[@simonwinter8839]

@@DC4260Productions What I think I'm saying (because these days I doubt even myself !!)why didn't they (whoever "they"are) have the foresight to realise the trains would be needed in the not too distant future.

[@supertrains156.66]

But in 2021 the isle of wight train is now been replaced by battery d trains with is modified d stock from the district line

[@williamerazo3921]

No B

[@williamwildcat]

@@williamerazo3921D

[@ianmcclavin]

They're not battery trains, theyre ex D Stock modified for 3rd rail pick up.

[@marksinthehouse1968]

The fit and finish on the 83 stock was not good either it’s kiepe electrical equipment was unreliable the 6 new battery locomotives delivered in 85/86 had similar and didn’t last long ,it was originally going to be almost identical to the 1973 stock except for the cabs if in its original form 1978 stock was built ,but it was built on the cheap and looked it inside

[@oludotunjohnshowemimo434]

Stupid mistake to copy the D Stock to the 1983 stock, it shortened its service life on the Jubilee line, it was constantly developing technical faults and the single leaf doors slowed down boarding times. Too expensive to convert to double doors and it was finally canned when the 1996 stock took over.

[@Santiago-lb5md]

Ok we get it stop commenting the same thing again and again

[@TrainBusFan06]

Another mistake was the use of longer cars compared to other tube stock. It made it increasingly difficult for the 83 stock to handle tight curves, making them undesirable for other tube lines...

[@TrainBusFan06]

But I would be interested to know what allowed the d stock to get away with more or less the same design. The only reason I can think of is that there was no planned extension of the district line during their time in service and therefore no money had to be spent on rebuilding of the stock to increase capacity...

[@Wildlifesupernannyfan]

Why did they scrap such young trains? 😭😭😭😭. And just left to rust!!!! The worst waste of trains.

[@cece_e193]

They were very badly designed and had a lot of problems and requested the use of 1972 stock with them in order not to have too many delays caused by these trains and were then replaced by the 1995 stock, while the 1972 stock went back to the bakerloo line like the northern line ones.