I got to ride on a 2009 stock train on the victoria line recently.

Was it designed by complete morons or were they partial morons who had
help from the London School of ****wittery?

The doors are the external type so the walls could be quite thin allowing more
space as they don't have to provide space for the doors to fit in. So can
someone explain why the walls are the thickest I've ever seen on a tube train?
Must be 5 or 6 inches easily. And not satisfied with wasting almost a foot of
space already they then mount the seats 2 inches from the walls. So instead of
having the seats flush against a thin wall allowing a nice wide isle with
maximum space it actually looks like theres a bit less space in the seating
area than in a 67 stock.

Can LU and its train builders ever get anything right?

B2003

On 19 Apr, 09:31, wrote:
I got to ride on a 2009 stock train on the victoria line recently.

Was it designed by complete morons or were they partial morons who had
help from the London School of ****wittery?

The doors are the external type so the walls could be quite thin allowing more
space as they don't have to provide space for the doors to fit in. So can
someone explain why the walls are the thickest I've ever seen on a tube train?
Must be 5 or 6 inches easily. And not satisfied with wasting almost a foot of
space already they then mount the seats 2 inches from the walls. So instead of
having the seats flush against a thin wall allowing a nice wide isle with
maximum space it actually looks like theres a bit less space in the seating
area than in a 67 stock.

Can LU and its train builders ever get anything right?

B2003

I think they are quite ugly at the front end.

I think they are quite ugly full stop

Only managed to get one once so far, but I'm not impressed.
The seats are really uncomfortable too

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, d wrote:

I got to ride on a 2009 stock train on the victoria line recently.

Was it designed by complete morons or were they partial morons who had
help from the London School of ****wittery?

The doors are the external type so the walls could be quite thin allowing more
space as they don't have to provide space for the doors to fit in. So can
someone explain why the walls are the thickest I've ever seen on a tube train?

You were in the special padded coach.

tom

--
Get a ****ing hobby that isn't breathing, browsing 4chan, or fapping. --
The Well Cultured Anonymous, on Manners

On 19 Apr, 09:31, wrote:
I got to ride on a 2009 stock train on the victoria line recently.

Was it designed by complete morons or were they partial morons who had
help from the London School of ****wittery?

The doors are the external type so the walls could be quite thin allowing more
space as they don't have to provide space for the doors to fit in. So can
someone explain why the walls are the thickest I've ever seen on a tube train?
Must be 5 or 6 inches easily. And not satisfied with wasting almost a foot of
space already they then mount the seats 2 inches from the walls. So instead of
having the seats flush against a thin wall allowing a nice wide isle with
maximum space it actually looks like theres a bit less space in the seating
area than in a 67 stock.

Can LU and its train builders ever get anything right?

B2003

I didn't think anything on LU could be worse than the Jubilee stock,
but maybe they've managed it.

I've mentioned in the past how the walls are getting thicker and
thicker, with chunky obstructions where people need to lean, and
wondered if the trains will eventually be solid with just enough space
inside to put the electric wires through.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:31:56 +0100
Tom Anderson wrote:
The doors are the external type so the walls could be quite thin allowing
more
space as they don't have to provide space for the doors to fit in. So can
someone explain why the walls are the thickest I've ever seen on a tube
train?

You were in the special padded coach.

So thats why they ran out of padding for the seats.

B2003

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
having the seats flush against a thin wall allowing a nice wide isle with
maximum space it actually looks like theres a bit less space in the seating
area than in a 67 stock.

Can LU and its train builders ever get anything right?

B2003

I didn't think anything on LU could be worse than the Jubilee stock,
but maybe they've managed it.

Jubilee stock sounds nice Not convinced about the interior colour scheme
though.

I've mentioned in the past how the walls are getting thicker and
thicker, with chunky obstructions where people need to lean, and
wondered if the trains will eventually be solid with just enough space
inside to put the electric wires through.

It does begger belief really. They advertise the new trains as having more
space then wheel out a train that has the same or less than the ones its
replacing. What a complete waste of money. I wonder how much of the recent
fare increase was to pay for these pointless new trains.

B2003

wrote in message

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
having the seats flush against a thin wall allowing a nice wide
isle with maximum space it actually looks like theres a bit less
space in the seating area than in a 67 stock.

I've mentioned in the past how the walls are getting thicker and
thicker, with chunky obstructions where people need to lean, and
wondered if the trains will eventually be solid with just enough
space inside to put the electric wires through.

It does begger belief really. They advertise the new trains as having
more space then wheel out a train that has the same or less than the
ones its replacing. What a complete waste of money. I wonder how much
of the recent fare increase was to pay for these pointless new trains.

Is it pointless to replace stock that's over 40 years old with faster,
longer and (supposedly) wider new ones?

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:40:34 +0100, "Nicola Redwood"
wrote:


The seats are really uncomfortable too

And this is the biggest problem. Being a "fat lump" the seats are too
narrow but fundamentally they are also just horrible to sit on. Sure
some of the 67 stock seat covers are a long way past their sell by
date but at least there is some give or spring in the seats
themselves. Whoever decided we should be given moquette covered
planks to sit on needs to spend 12 hours riding back and forth on the
2009 stock. I wonder if they'd be able to walk afterwards.

Do you know if the new S Stock has similar hard seats? That may be more
of a problem given that District and Met line pax tend to have much
longer journeys than on the Victoria line. I think the current D stock
seats are quite comfortable, though the springy A stock seats give me
backache -- perhaps the new S stock will be worse than both.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:02:32 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
It does begger belief really. They advertise the new trains as having
more space then wheel out a train that has the same or less than the
ones its replacing. What a complete waste of money. I wonder how much
of the recent fare increase was to pay for these pointless new trains.

Is it pointless to replace stock that's over 40 years old with faster,
longer and (supposedly) wider new ones?

If they're no wider inside and less comfortable I can't see as the best
spending decision ever made unless the 67s are really on their last legs.

B2003