2009 stock piss poor interior design
 

wrote in message

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.

I've read that the 2009 stock is 40mm wider than the 67 stock, but I
don't know how the wall thicknesses compare. It's also longer. But, like
you, I don't understand this obsession with fitting thin, hard seats to
new public transport vehicles. It's a bit like how car manufacturers
seem obsessed with making their cars go faster round the Nürburgring, at
the expense of a harsh, uncomfortable ride, which is far more important
to most people.

2009 stock piss poor interior design
 

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:30:22 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
I've read that the 2009 stock is 40mm wider than the 67 stock, but I

Is that all? In that case my guess is that extra width is simply due to the
externally hung doors.

you, I don't understand this obsession with fitting thin, hard seats to
new public transport vehicles. It's a bit like how car manufacturers

I guess they're going down the european and american routes. Perhaps we
should think ourselves lucky to get any fabric at all and not just be
presented with a plastic bucket seat! :)

B2003

2009 stock piss poor interior design
 

On 20/04/2010 10:05, Recliner wrote:
"Paul 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.



I understand that S stock is due to enter revenue service sometime this
year, but only on the Metropolitan Line -- C and D stock are not due for
replacement until 2013.

This is what one District Line driver told me.

I wonder, then when the 62A is due to make its last run. Any word on that?

Haven't had any luck yet with 09 stock on the Victoria Line,
unfortunately. When do they plan to fully roll out stock?

I did see one at KXSP, but it was only being tested.

2009 stock piss poor interior design
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Not 100% certain as I have not seen a real life S Stock yet.

However here is a photo I took of the mock up when it visited
Upminster
depot open day. To me the seats look very class 378 esque.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/3870840969/

Ugh! The 378 seats are appallingly thin!

--
Colin Rosenstiel