Talk:London Underground 1967 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
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

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).

Top speed

I have removed "The top speed was 50 mph (80kmh)." from the lead, as these numbers are for the 2009 stock, and are not supported by the following ref, which only supports 14,000km for mean distance before failure. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Underground 1967 Stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004231025/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/foi/Rolling_stock_Data_Sheet_2nd_Edition.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/foi/Rolling_stock_Data_Sheet_2nd_Edition.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Underground 1967 Stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820102837/http://www.walthamstowpumphousemuseum.org.uk/filming.html to http://www.walthamstowpumphousemuseum.org.uk/filming.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Withdrawal Uses

3438 is a 1972 Stock car. At least check the car numbers of the 1972 Stock which are available *on the wikipedia page* before writing complete nonsense here. Slrpjude (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet numbers

The fleet numbers are not entirely correct. Only 3001-3079 were newly built 67 stock, 3080-3086 being converted 72 stock that were later added to the fleet. I tried updating the table to reflect this, but it got reverted. TrainBusFan06 (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a source to back it up, that's why I reverted it Turini2 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turini2: the source is that initially only 39.5 trains, so 79 units (3001-3079) were part of the 67 stock fleet. Later 7 units of 72 stock (3080-3086) joined, making the total number 43 trains, so 86 units (3001-3086). Its all just simple maths... TrainBusFan06 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as simple as that - the reference I have (LU Rolling Stock, Brian Hardy, 13th edition) says that 3080 to 3086 - the 67TS DM A end and the trailer cars were 72 Stock converted, but the other trailer and DM D are 67 stock cars renumbered. Furthermore, seven of the 3001-3052 trains had 72TS trailers and DM D.

So it was a mixture! The article is already clear on this "they [72 TS] were used only as non-driving cars, positioned in the middle of trains rather than at the ends" Turini2 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1967 Stock numbers were 3001/4001/4101/3101 to 3079/4079/4179/3179, that is, 79 four-car units or 39½ eight-car trains. They were ordered in two batches, of 61 and 18 units respectively, the second batch being ordered when the Brixton extension was authorised. All of the units were double-ended, having two driving cabs: for service on the Victoria line, two units were coupled to form an eight-car train, with the two cabs in the centre of the train not in use. Units could operate singly if necessary, but in practice this only occurred on the Central line's Woodford-Hainault shuttle.

The converted 1972 Stock was not formed into complete units. Instead, seven of the existing 1967 Stock four-car units were split into fourteen motor-trailer pairs, and each pair formed one half of fourteen "new" four-car units. The 'A' end pairs retained their numbers, the 'D' end pairs were renumbered into the 3180-3186/4180-4186 blocks - for example, 3101/4101 became 3180/4180. The 28 cars required to make up the other halves of these 14 units were converted from 1972 Stock cars (five four-car and four three-car 1972 Stock units being split up to provide them), and these were given numbers 3080-3086/4080-4086 if they were to be formed at the 'A' end, whereas the 'D' end cars took the former numbers of the 1967 Stock cars that had become 3180-3186/4180-4186. The fourteen units that now comprised two 1967 Stock cars and two 1972 Stock cars were then considered to be single-ended - the 1972 Stock cab was locked out of use (as it lacked the ATO control equipment) and had to be formed into the middle of the train. Eight-car trains could then be of three different formations: two units of original 1967 Stock; two units each comprising two cars of 1967 Stock and two of 1972 Stock; or one unit of each type. But whichever combination was used, the outer driving cabs had to be of 1967 Stock, because these cars had ATO and the 1972 Stock cars didn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Hello and thanks for giving further information on the subject. Yes its all clear to me now, but my question is how do we update the table to reflect this, because in its current form its obviously not fully correct? TrainBusFan06 (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]