1960 stock trailer cars

[danwoodhouse]

Why was the 1960 stock built as brand new motor cars coupled with (what would have been) aging pre 1938 standard stock trailer cars?

From what I have read, had the whole production run of 1960 stock happened all the train would have had standard stock trailers, not just the prototypes.

To me the whole idea seems a bit daft, I can't see what the advantage was to modernise older trailer cars to run with newer stock (esp as the stardard stock trailers must have been about 40 years old already!) 

[DWS]

Basic answer no money to buy a whole fleet of1960 new build stock , the late 1950’s was a time of austerity after world war 2, Britain had run up large loans which had to be paid back .

[jimbo]

I'm sure DWS is correct. During the War the Nation's labour and funding had been primarily directed to the war front, and there was some six years backlog of maintenance, servicing and replacement, without repairs of bomb damage, not only for LU and the railways. The 1938TS deliveries to the Northern and Bakerloo lines released standard stock for the Central line, but they were stored until completion of extensions as late as 1949. The Piccadilly was priority for a new fleet, eventually delivered as 1959TS, an updated version of 1938TS. These would have released newer standard stock to the Central line, but priorities changed so that the 1959TS eventually went direct to the Central line until a build of 1962TS could release them back to the Piccadilly.

The 1960TS was a radical new design which needed longer development trials. The driving motor cars featured two motors per bogie, powerful enough to avoid the need for intermediate non-driving motor cars. Trains would have had an equal number of motor cars and trailers. Standard stock had not used unit formations, with each car treated as an individual vehicle coupled to form trains as required. Motor cars had different maintenance rotations to trailer cars, so train reformation was a routine requirement. Trailers with simple equipment were expected to last longer than motor cars. It therefore followed that when motor cars were life expired, the trailers could provide further service. An economy measure must have led to the idea to put standard trailers released from the Piccadilly 1959TS deliveries into the proposed new Central line trains. These were from 1927 and 1931 batches, so some 30 years old at the time. One wonders how long they were expected to remain, surely not as long as the new driving motor cars. So perhaps they always expected 1938TS trailers to become part of 1960TS in time.

Conversion work was more than a silver paint coat! Trailers were rewired from 630 volts to 50 volts, with new compressors, fluro lights and door indicator lights, etc. LU experience seems to have been that conversions come out over budget, so a fleet build may well have seen a change of plan to new trailers after the prototypes, as the 1962TS build did! However, the 1960TS prototypes were the basis for the next fleet built, the 1967TS for the Victoria line, with driving motor/trailer pairs, two motors per bogie, double glazed wide windows with vent flaps above, and stand-back areas alongside doors, etc.

[jimbo]

Aug 19, 2021 12:21:49 GMT DWS said:

Basic answer no money to buy a whole fleet of1960 new build stock , the late 1950’s was a time of austerity after world war 2, Britain had run up large loans which had to be paid back .

On 3 December 2014 the UK Government announced it would redeem the outstanding war loans on 9 March 2015. (from World War I) source

[towerman]

Aug 19, 2021 9:39:15 GMT danwoodhouse said:

Why was the 1960 stock built as brand new motor cars coupled with (what would have been) aging pre 1938 standard stock trailer cars?

From what I have read, had the whole production run of 1960 stock happened all the train would have had standard stock trailers, not just the prototypes.

To me the whole idea seems a bit daft, I can't see what the advantage was to modernise older trailer cars to run with newer stock (esp as the stardard stock trailers must have been about 40 years old already!) 

It actually worked out more expensive to convert Standard trailers than build from scratch so the 60TS project was scrapped & a follow on from the 59TS (62TS ) was ordered.

[metman]

I also wondered if the standard stock trailers in the 1960 stock was a stop gap until 1938 stock trailers were withdrawn in the 1970s to use in their place. Ultimately this happened but only on a small scale.

It’s a moot point as mentioned as the cost of the conversions and the condition of the pre-1938 stock cars was an issue which ultimately led to the birth of the 1962 stock. In the end I think the Central Line did rather well with the 1962 stock.

[spsmiler]

Another part of the story was that LT wanted new trains for the Central line 'pdq' (pretty damn quick) because (some of)* the mainline services out of Liverpool Street that passed through Hackney Downs were being electrified and they (LT) expected a surge in passenger numbers wanting onward travel from Liverpool St to the City and West End. This worried them greatly, as they thought that even with 8 car trains the Standard Stock would be unable to cope. It was not just reliability (or not) of the older trains, but also the fleet size (insufficient?) and that the older trains had some internal space lost to electrical control gear whereas the newer trains had all their control gear below the solebar.

So, with their planned but much delayed 1952 tube stock not fully tested and proven viable they just extended the existing order for the 1959 stock trains.

The 1952 Tube stock was effectively the 1960ts DMs which it had been hoped could be married with refurbished Standard stock trailers - many of which had spent all of WW2 dumped in sidings in the Hainault area and because of this had deteriorated in condition. Whilst no more of the (now) 1960ts DMs were built they included some design etc cues that were adopted by the next generation of tube trains - 1967/72. Things such as a new style of opening window covers.

*)Alas, as the late Snoggle would have pointed out had he still been with us, part of the network ended up being closed (eg: Hall Farm Curve).

[t697]

I seem to recall the JG Bruce book Tube Trains under London also cites the two serious arcing/fire incidents on Standard Stock in 1958 and 1960 at Redbridge and Holland Park as helping accelerate the decision to just go with 8 car trains of the 1959TS type train which of course became 1962TS for the Central.

[metman]

Quite possibly. Also this led to many driving motor cars having their reseptical boxes removed thus relegating them to the intermediate positions in the train.

[spsmiler]

Aug 20, 2021 22:58:48 GMT t697 said:

I seem to recall the JG Bruce book Tube Trains under London also cites the two serious arcing/fire incidents on Standard Stock in 1958 and 1960 at Redbridge and Holland Park as helping accelerate the decision to just go with 8 car trains of the 1959TS type train which of course became 1962TS for the Central.

With hindsight and the problems with motors falling off the trains which replaced the 1962ts fleet in mind, many would say that its a shame that near-identical trains were not built again to replace the life-expired 1962 fleet.

[Dstock7080]

Aug 28, 2021 10:53:01 GMT spsmiler said:

With hindsight and the problems with motors falling off the trains which replaced the 1962ts fleet in mind, many would say that its a shame that near-identical trains were not built again to replace the life-expired 1962 fleet.

Unfortunately crash worthiness, fire regulations, technology enhancements and driver ergonomics would probably have prevented that

[Tom]

Also worth remembering that at the time, the signalling on the line generally dated from the 1940s and was life-expired. As both trains and signalling needed replacing, this was the best time to equip the line with a modern system which could cope with the expected increases in passenger numbers. 'More of the same' for rolling stock, would have meant 'more of the same' for signalling.