Talk:London Underground 1983 Stock

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Video

A video can found in 'youtube' w/1983 is drew in colors www.youtube.com/ 218.102.110.210 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring Error

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the new coaches built by Metro-Cammell for London Transport have been returned because they were 18mm too wide?^[1]^[2]

@NearEMPTiness This has been added to the article. :) Turini2 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never. Thank you very much. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Duffy, Hazel (12 January 1984). "Train fault may hinder Singapore metro bid". Financial Times. Factiva. p. 5. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ "New coaches built by Metro-Cammell for London Transport have been returned because they are 18mm too wide". Textline Multiple Source Collection. Factiva. 12 January 1984.

Trains versus units versus cars

Should the number of trains refer to the 31¹⁄₂ 6-car trains built or the 63 3-car units built (which ran as two units = 1 train)? Or both! Looks like the London Underground D78 Stock calls them "sets" - so I might go with that. Turini2 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In

Hardy, Brian (1997) [1976]. London Underground Rolling Stock (14th ed.). Harrow: Capital Transport. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1-85414-193-7.

the terms "train" and "unit" are both used (with "train" in the majority), but not "set". On page 78 of the same book, only the term "unit" is used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the wording in the article of " 31 ¹⁄₂ sets, (63 3-car units, 189 cars)"? Turini2 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd write "63 3-car units, sufficient to form 31 trains with one unit spare". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was talking about the infobox - so 63 3-car units (189 cars) ? Turini2 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Duffy, Hazel (12 January 1984). "Train fault may hinder Singapore metro bid". Financial Times. Factiva. p. 5. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[2] "New coaches built by Metro-Cammell for London Transport have been returned because they are 18mm too wide". Textline Multiple Source Collection. Factiva. 12 January 1984.

[1]

[2]