London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 20th 10, 09:50 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,920
Default 2009 stock **** poor interior design

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

  #2   Report Post  
Old April 20th 10, 10:30 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,008
Default 2009 stock **** 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.


  #3   Report Post  
Old April 20th 10, 10:43 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,920
Default 2009 stock **** 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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock? [email protected] London Transport 55 January 13th 12 11:14 AM
LUL New Stock design Q London Transport 3 March 13th 09 10:25 PM
2009 stock John Rowland London Transport 15 July 15th 06 10:42 PM
Looking for tube train interior plan [email protected] London Transport 1 April 30th 06 05:09 PM
Interior of Tube / Trains J. Public London Transport 2 September 18th 03 02:26 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017