On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:30:28 -0500
Recliner wrote:
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

--
Spud

On 2014-10-29 09:30:28 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, I agree -- I think they're great, whether packed or with empty seats.
A huge improvement on the C Stock and a generally big improvement on the A
stock, apart from for the long distance commuters from Amersham and
Chesham, who've both lost out.

Sort-of - they can always use Chiltern if they prefer, and personally I
actually find the S-stock seating far more comfortable than the
all-facing, not-enough-legroom, bolt-upright seating of the A-stock,
not to mention the leaky windows and condensation on a cold day. The
A-stock, while a bit retro, really was from another era.

And of course the horrible dentist's chair daylight lighting, which
fortunately LUL have abandoned and used a nice welcoming warm white in
the S-stock. We just need fGW to learn now and remove it from their
HSTs/180s as well.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-10-29 10:06:11 +0000, d said:

I don't have a problem with them other than the idiotic decision to lower
the floor which makes the carriage narrower at the doors and the doors an odd
and difficult shape to lean against. Now you might not think that a problem
but then I suspect you don't commute on them in the central london rush hour.

I have used them in the Central London rush hour - my most likely use
of them is Euston Square towards the City or towards Paddington. They
are much better than the stock that went before them as more standing
room is provided and door access is easier. The solution to leaning on
the doors being awkward is simply not to lean on the doors. In any
case you aren't mean to anyway for safety reasons, so discouraging it
by shaping the doors to make it inconvenient to do so is arguably a
beneficial safety feature.

The one thing I would concede as a possible design flaw with regard to
standing room is that they could perhaps have done with considering
standbacks like the SWT 455s to avoid small standing loads blocking the
doors. But equally I can see the need to maximise seating for those
travelling longer distances.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-29 09:30:28 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, I agree -- I think they're great, whether packed or with empty seats.
A huge improvement on the C Stock and a generally big improvement on the A
stock, apart from for the long distance commuters from Amersham and
Chesham, who've both lost out.

Sort-of - they can always use Chiltern if they prefer, and personally I
actually find the S-stock seating far more comfortable than the all-facing,
not-enough-legroom, bolt-upright seating of the A-stock, not to mention
the leaky windows and condensation on a cold day. The A-stock, while a
bit retro, really was from another era.

Amersham has lost 2tph to Chesham, and its fast Met services, while the
Chiltern service, using smaller trains, hasn't increased. The S stock also
has fewer seats than the A stock. The promise had been that with the new
signalling, the Met service would increase to compensate for the reduced
seating, but the resignalling project is infamously delayed.

The venerable A stock was worn out, so the sagging seats had become very
uncomfortable, the ride was poor, the compressors deafening, the windows
leaked, etc. I didn't use them in their heyday, but suspect that they were
nice trains in the 1960s and 70s, just as the S stock is today.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-29 10:06:11 +0000, d said:

I don't have a problem with them other than the idiotic decision to lower
the floor which makes the carriage narrower at the doors and the doors an odd
and difficult shape to lean against. Now you might not think that a problem
but then I suspect you don't commute on them in the central london rush hour.

I have used them in the Central London rush hour - my most likely use of
them is Euston Square towards the City or towards Paddington. They are
much better than the stock that went before them as more standing room is
provided and door access is easier. The solution to leaning on the doors
being awkward is simply not to lean on the doors. In any case you aren't
mean to anyway for safety reasons, so discouraging it by shaping the
doors to make it inconvenient to do so is arguably a beneficial safety feature.

The one thing I would concede as a possible design flaw with regard to
standing room is that they could perhaps have done with considering
standbacks like the SWT 455s to avoid small standing loads blocking the
doors. But equally I can see the need to maximise seating for those
travelling longer distances.

I also find that when crammed, it's sometimes hard to reach a pole or grab
handle. On one strike day, when they really were crammed, I felt pressure
on my outstretched arm as I tried to hang on to a pole -- it was a buxom
woman's chest molesting my forearm! She didn't move for quite a few
minutes, but might have complained if it was the other way round.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:32:47 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
I have used them in the Central London rush hour - my most likely use
of them is Euston Square towards the City or towards Paddington. They
are much better than the stock that went before them as more standing

Yes, they are a lot better. But they could have been better still.

room is provided and door access is easier. The solution to leaning on
the doors being awkward is simply not to lean on the doors. In any

Oh come on. There are times when you simply don't have a choice in the
matter.

--
Spud

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:40:05 -0500
Recliner wrote:
The venerable A stock was worn out, so the sagging seats had become very
uncomfortable, the ride was poor, the compressors deafening, the windows
leaked, etc. I didn't use them in their heyday, but suspect that they were
nice trains in the 1960s and 70s, just as the S stock is today.

I suspect the chances of any of the modern stock lasting 50 years without a
virtual rebuild (as opposed to a refurb) is close to zero. They're simply not
built as strongly inside or out. The 2009 stock on the victoria line is already
starting to look a bit worn out internally in places.

--
Spud

On 2014\10\29 10:07, d wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:30:28 -0500
Recliner wrote:
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

Class 313s?

On 2014-10-29 10:48:20 +0000, d said:

Oh come on. There are times when you simply don't have a choice in the
matter.

If I am going to be forced against the door, I don't board that train.
If that is the case for every train, I find another mode, e.g. walking,
bus or Bozza bike.

Being 6' 4" I am well used to this - the only place I can stand on deep
Tube stock is right in the middle. If I'm not going to be able to get
there, I don't board.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-10-29 10:55:54 +0000, Basil Jet said:

On 2014\10\29 10:07, d wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:30:28 -0500
Recliner wrote:
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

Class 313s?

Certainly nicer than C-stock. Though I suppose I did grow up with them
(well, the internally identical 507s and 508s) on Merseyrail.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.