In message
, Paul
Corfield writes

So have they started hauling the 67 stock off for scrap yet?

Several must have gone by now because there is not the space to
receive 09 stock and retain all the 67s. I looked on the "District
Dave" board to see if there was some sort of tally being kept but
nothing there.

Latest Underground News from LURS advises:

Acton Works to Booths, Rotherham for scrap -

4038 4118 10th (May)
3018 3138 11th
4018 4138 12th
3038 3118 13th

After being moved Northumberland Park to Acton Works on 5th.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Jul 6, 8:34*am, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
In message
, Paul
Corfield writes

So have they started hauling the 67 stock off for scrap yet?

Several must have gone by now because there is not the space to
receive 09 stock and retain all the 67s. *I looked on the "District
Dave" board to see if there was some sort of tally being kept but
nothing there.

Latest Underground News from LURS advises:

Acton Works to Booths, Rotherham for scrap -

4038 4118 * * * 10th (May)
3018 3138 * * * 11th
4018 4138 * * * 12th
3038 3118 * * * 13th

After being moved Northumberland Park to Acton Works on 5th.


How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

1506 wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ...
On Jul 6, 8:34 am, Steve ] wrote:
In message
, Paul
writes

So have they started hauling the 67 stock off for scrap yet?

Several must have gone by now because there is not the space to
receive 09 stock and retain all the 67s. I looked on the "District
Dave" board to see if there was some sort of tally being kept but
nothing there.

Latest Underground News from LURS advises:

Acton Works to Booths, Rotherham for scrap -

4038 4118 10th (May)
3018 3138 11th
4018 4138 12th
3038 3118 13th

After being moved Northumberland Park to Acton Works on 5th.


How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time
without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it
much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock. And having
all longitudinal seating means more space for standing passengers, so
that's a comfort benefit too. I can't comment on seat comfort as
they're always full up when I travel, which I suppose means they can't
be that bad. :-)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 07/07/2010 19:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ...

How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

I don't really like the new stock - I suppose I should like it but they
are a real disappointment [1]. The seats are too narrow, the seat
"cushions" have no cushioning and they are far too hard. The tip up
seats are little better - having had to endure one the other evening. I
pointed all this out at the mock up visit at Euston but clearly no one
took any notice.

There are also silly things like the windows are far too small and don't
stretch the entire length of the seating bay - this is a really
retrograde step in my view. Given the number of cross platform
interchanges on the Vic Line it can be important to be able to see the
opposite platform but the end seats in every bay have a wretched panel
opposite them rather than a window.

I also noticed the other morning that the doors really move back and
forth in their runners when the train moves at speed. Given the trains
are not running at full power I wonder if the doors will be sucked out
of their runners when the full capability of the stock and control
system is exploited.

On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time
without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it
much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock.

Not in my experience - one had to crawl along a few millimetres at Seven
Sisters the other morning. I'm sure I've had other trains "micro
adjust" their stopping point.

Are the 09s being manually operated at the moment or are they on autopilot?

Paul Corfield wrote on 07 July 2010 19:48:02 ...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ...

How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

I don't really like the new stock - I suppose I should like it but they
are a real disappointment [1]. The seats are too narrow, the seat
"cushions" have no cushioning and they are far too hard. The tip up
seats are little better - having had to endure one the other evening. I
pointed all this out at the mock up visit at Euston but clearly no one
took any notice.

There are also silly things like the windows are far too small and don't
stretch the entire length of the seating bay - this is a really
retrograde step in my view. Given the number of cross platform
interchanges on the Vic Line it can be important to be able to see the
opposite platform but the end seats in every bay have a wretched panel
opposite them rather than a window.

I don't understand that comment. Why is it "important" to be able to
see the opposite platform before you leave the train?

[snip]
On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time
without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it
much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock.

Not in my experience - one had to crawl along a few millimetres at Seven
Sisters the other morning. I'm sure I've had other trains "micro
adjust" their stopping point.

Crawling a few millimetres will still be more comfortable than using the
emergency brake.

And having
all longitudinal seating means more space for standing passengers, so
that's a comfort benefit too. I can't comment on seat comfort as
they're always full up when I travel, which I suppose means they can't
be that bad. :-)

All the longitudinal seating means is that there are fewer seats which
is no good really.

"No good" from whose point of view? Not from the point of view of
people who would have been left on the platform because of the lower
capacity of 67 stock.

Basically my point was that in terms of moving large numbers of
passengers in safety and reasonable comfort, the new trains are a better
fit-for-purpose than the old ones. All this stuff about the view from
the windows and whether the seats need more padding for your 10-minute
journey sound a bit Luddite to me. I take your point about hand-holds
for standing passengers, which are important. (In that context I've
never understood why the rail above the doors in 92 stock is a
near-invisible grey instead of the red of all the other hand-holds.)

Two other queries:

- In your experience how does the ventilation system compare with 67
stock? The window configuration is partly determined by the ducting
between the low-level air intakes and the outlets at head height, which
was supposed to improve ventilation.

- Have the problems with the doors been related to the new "sensitive
edge" feature to detect obstructions?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 08/07/2010 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote:


Yes and? I am not aware of 67 stock being made to stop with the
emergency brake.

I have. You can at times see the driver applying the emergency brake if
he is standing on the right side of the cab, as opposed to the left.

This makes for quite an abrupt stop.

Might also be worth noting that I have seen them use the controller to
throw the train into emergency when they are sitting on the left-hand side.

On 7 July, 19:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0100, "Richard J."

wrote:
1506 wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ...
How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. *From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

I don't really like the new stock - I suppose I should like it but they
are a real disappointment [1]. The seats are too narrow, the seat
"cushions" have no cushioning and they are far too hard. *The tip up
seats are little better - having had to endure one the other evening. I
pointed all this out at the mock up visit at Euston but clearly no one
took any notice.

There are also silly things like the windows are far too small and don't
stretch the entire length of the seating bay - this is a really
retrograde step in my view. Given the number of cross platform
interchanges on the Vic Line it can be important to be able to see the
opposite platform but the end seats in every bay have a wretched panel
opposite them rather than a window.

*I also noticed the other morning that the doors really move back and
forth in their runners when the train moves at speed. *Given the trains
are not running at full power I wonder if the doors will be sucked out
of their runners when the full capability of the stock and control
system is exploited.

On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time
without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it
much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock. *

Not in my experience - one had to crawl along a few millimetres at Seven
Sisters the other morning. *I'm sure I've had other trains "micro
adjust" their stopping point.

And having
all longitudinal seating means more space for standing passengers, so
that's a comfort benefit too. *I can't comment on seat comfort as
they're always full up when I travel, which I suppose means they can't
be that bad. :-)

All the longitudinal seating means is that there are fewer seats which
is no good really. The enormous disabled bays in the centre of the train
further impinge on standing capacity because there are no head height
hand rails to hold on to - same problem over the tip up seat area. *I am
sure there are logical explanations as to why the design is as it is. To
my "non train designer" eyes it is a mistake to reduce the number of
places people can hold on to when the train is designed to carry far
more standees. The fact the trains can clearly go extremely quickly will
mean it will be more a challenge to hold on in the future when they
start to use their superior acceleration and braking capability.

The fact the seats are taken does not mean that people enjoy sitting on
them! *I have noticed a few (of the regular) people in the morning
deliberately not getting a 09 stock and waiting instead for a 67 stock -
presumably because they find them more comfortable.

[1] sorry LUL / TfL press office if you're reading this. I have tried to
like the 09 stock but I really prefer the old trains.
--
Paul C

I went in 2009 stock for the first time today. Not sure they are a
backward step as such, because was anything like them in the past?
Just a bad step.

The external display was showing "Warren Street" as it pulled into
Euston. Given the lack of windows, not helpful if it was showing the
same inside.

I've never experienced anything like those seats in a train. (A
particularly painful conference once though.) Not just hard, but at
an angle that forces one to lean forward. Or if one slumps one's bum
forward and leans back, only the top ridge of the seat is painfully in
contact with one's back.

The most striking thing of all was how tiny it seemed inside.
Narrower and lower-ceilinged than even the 1992 stock. What was all
that about them being "spacious"? Not much use basing that on them
being a couple of inches wider externally when the walls are six
inches thick. Why the hell are the walls six inches thick?

And the odd thing ... why does the voice say "The next station is
Vitcoria"? (But at least it didn't say "change for Connex" like the
new DLR stock.)

On 9 July, 21:03, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:44:58 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

[huge snip]

I went in 2009 stock for the first time today. *Not sure they are a
backward step as such, because was anything like them in the past?
Just a bad step.

Oh look someone agrees.


Yebbut it must be because I hate anything new, am a trainspotter etc
etc.

On 06/07/2010 16:34, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message
, Paul
Corfield writes

So have they started hauling the 67 stock off for scrap yet?

Several must have gone by now because there is not the space to
receive 09 stock and retain all the 67s. I looked on the "District
Dave" board to see if there was some sort of tally being kept but
nothing there.

Latest Underground News from LURS advises:

Acton Works to Booths, Rotherham for scrap -

4038 4118 10th (May)
3018 3138 11th
4018 4138 12th
3038 3118 13th

After being moved Northumberland Park to Acton Works on 5th.

What about for the Island Line? Any going that way?

wrote in message
news:EPOYn.108845$m87.80874@hurricane...


What about for the Island Line? Any going that way?

No - 'Island line' is to get 73 stock, according to SWT a few months ago.

Paul S