On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:51:08 GMT, d wrote:

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.

Yes, I think you're right. In fact, with all the high tech
electronics, I don't think they're expected to. We can already see
that, with the 1992 TS due to be replaced by the NTfL when it's only
about 35 years old.

Re the 2009 TS, it's interesting that it's so much worse than the
popular S stock, considering that they're both Bombardier Movia
trains, ordered by Metronet, build in the same factory, at almost the
same time. As you often point out, the thick walls make them feel
tight inside, and I find the seats very uncomfortable.

On 2014-10-29 11:53:29 +0000, Recliner said:

Re the 2009 TS, it's interesting that it's so much worse than the
popular S stock, considering that they're both Bombardier Movia
trains, ordered by Metronet, build in the same factory, at almost the
same time. As you often point out, the thick walls make them feel
tight inside, and I find the seats very uncomfortable.

I actually quite like them, but it's purely because the profile means
there are more places I can stand than other deep Tube stock.

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

On 29.10.14 10:29, 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.

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

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

On 29.10.14 12:26, wrote:
On 29.10.14 10:29, 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.

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

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

I made a mistake in writing that. I meant to say that I think that LUL
could have done better on the S-stock's internal lighting from an
aesthetic perspective.

As for the overall look of the trains themselves, I'm fine with them. I
do note, however, that they do look like caterpillars on flanged wheels.

" wrote:
On 29.10.14 12:26, wrote:
On 29.10.14 10:29, 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.

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

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

I made a mistake in writing that. I meant to say that I think that LUL
could have done better on the S-stock's internal lighting from an aesthetic perspective.

As for the overall look of the trains themselves, I'm fine with them. I
do note, however, that they do look like caterpillars on flanged wheels.

The articulated NTfL will look even more like a caterpillar.

On 29.10.14 12:53, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 29.10.14 12:26, wrote:
On 29.10.14 10:29, 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.

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

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

I made a mistake in writing that. I meant to say that I think that LUL
could have done better on the S-stock's internal lighting from an aesthetic perspective.

As for the overall look of the trains themselves, I'm fine with them. I
do note, however, that they do look like caterpillars on flanged wheels.

The articulated NTfL will look even more like a caterpillar.


I have no objection either to trains looking like caterpillars or to
caterpillars themselves, mind you. It's just that when I saw my first
S-8 in 2010, it rounded the curve into Moor Park from Watford, that was
the very first thought that popped into my mind.

I hope the interior lighting will be nicer on the NTfL than on the
S-series, in any event.

The internal lights on the blind end of 72TS are nice.

On 29.10.14 12:53, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 29.10.14 12:26, wrote:
On 29.10.14 10:29, 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.

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

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

I made a mistake in writing that. I meant to say that I think that LUL
could have done better on the S-stock's internal lighting from an aesthetic perspective.

As for the overall look of the trains themselves, I'm fine with them. I
do note, however, that they do look like caterpillars on flanged wheels.

The articulated NTfL will look even more like a caterpillar.

Can you remind me again, please, where that model of the NT4L is?

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:10:17 +0000, "
wrote:

On 29.10.14 12:53, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 29.10.14 12:26, wrote:
On 29.10.14 10:29, 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.

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

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

I made a mistake in writing that. I meant to say that I think that LUL
could have done better on the S-stock's internal lighting from an aesthetic perspective.

As for the overall look of the trains themselves, I'm fine with them. I
do note, however, that they do look like caterpillars on flanged wheels.

The articulated NTfL will look even more like a caterpillar.

Can you remind me again, please, where that model of the NT4L is?

Behind the cupcake stand in the northern ticket hall in Kings Cross
Underground station. There's a some signage on the history of the
Piccadilly line and a video as well.

On 2014-10-29 12:26:29 +0000, said:

Personally, I think that LUL could have done a bit better from an
aesthetic perspective on the S-series.

In what way?

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

On 2014-10-29 12:30:38 +0000, said:

I made a mistake in writing that. I meant to say that I think that LUL
could have done better on the S-stock's internal lighting from an
aesthetic perspective.

Ah, I see. Yes, warm white LED spots might have perhaps looked a bit
classier. But it does the job without being overly harsh.

As for the overall look of the trains themselves, I'm fine with them. I
do note, however, that they do look like caterpillars on flanged wheels.



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