2009 stock (again)
 

I had the dubious "pleasure" of riding on one of these yesterday. I do like
the way that the bum rests at the end of the cars are so high that you can't
actually sit on them without your legs dangling off the floor. You'd probably
need to be about 6'6 before they'd touch the floor. And if you try and sit on
them you find they're not actually quite deep enough anyway and you slowly
slide off again. So you just lean against them leaving a load of wasted space
behind. Genius.

And the doors didn't seem to appreciate people leaning against them. I presume
someone did tell the designers about "rush hour"?

THe ride is smooth and the suspension much better than the 67s but whoever
did the interior design should be pushed off a platform in front of one of
them. Its appalling.

B2003

2009 stock (again)
 

On Jun 8, 10:05*am, wrote:
I had the dubious "pleasure" of riding on one of these yesterday. I do like
the way that the bum rests at the end of the cars are so high that you can't
actually sit on them without your legs dangling off the floor. You'd probably
need to be about 6'6 before they'd touch the floor. And if you try and sit on
them you find they're not actually quite deep enough anyway and you slowly
slide off again. So you just lean against them leaving a load of wasted space
behind. Genius.

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for leaning,
not for sitting.

And the doors didn't seem to appreciate people leaning against them. I presume
someone did tell the designers about "rush hour"?
Most other Underground trains have this 'feature': too much pressure
on the doors forces them apart enough to trip the sensor, and the
train can't move off. The standard response appears to be for the
driver to threaten to take the train out of service unless passengers
stop leaning on them.

2009 stock (again)
 

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
martin wrote:
slide off again. So you just lean against them leaving a load of wasted s=
pace
behind. Genius.

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for leaning,
not for sitting.

1974? The bum perches in other stocks and pretty much flush up against the
wall with maybe a few inches behind. These things have about 9 inches of
wasted space behind them. Its the same story throughout the interior.

And the doors didn't seem to appreciate people leaning against them. I pr=
esume
someone did tell the designers about "rush hour"?
Most other Underground trains have this 'feature': too much pressure
on the doors forces them apart enough to trip the sensor, and the
train can't move off. The standard response appears to be for the
driver to threaten to take the train out of service unless passengers
stop leaning on them.

This was pretty bad though. And it can't be beyond the wit of man to
build a door sensor that can tell the difference between doors being
leant on and doors that haven't closed properly.

B2003

2009 stock (again)
 

On Jun 8, 5:00*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT)

martin wrote:
slide off again. So you just lean against them leaving a load of wasted s=
pace
behind. Genius.

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for leaning,
not for sitting.

1974? The bum perches in other stocks and pretty much flush up against the
wall with maybe a few inches behind. These things have about 9 inches of
wasted space behind them. Its the same story throughout the interior.

I meant 1973. Which, following extensive testing this morning, I can
confirm has space behind the bum rest, but it's too high up to
actually sit on.

Perhaps the reason the panel below the perch is so tall and thick is
that is has some sort of equipment in it?

2009 stock (again)
 

On 9 June, 15:52, martin wrote:
On Jun 8, 5:00*pm, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT)

martin wrote:
slide off again. So you just lean against them leaving a load of wasted s=
pace
behind. Genius.

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for leaning,
not for sitting.

1974? The bum perches in other stocks and pretty much flush up against the
wall with maybe a few inches behind. These things have about 9 inches of
wasted space behind them. Its the same story throughout the interior.

I meant 1973. Which, following extensive testing this morning, I can
confirm has space behind the bum rest, but it's too high up to
actually sit on.

Perhaps the reason the panel below the perch is so tall and thick is
that is has some sort of equipment in it?

But they are a recent addition, probably late 1990s. It's not their
original layout.

But they are nothing like as bad as the more modern stuff on the
Jubilee, with shoulder height obstructions so that you can't lean.

2009 stock (again)
 

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 07:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
martin wrote:
I meant 1973. Which, following extensive testing this morning, I can
confirm has space behind the bum rest, but it's too high up to
actually sit on.

Compared to the 2009 stock the amount of space it takes up is fairly small.

Perhaps the reason the panel below the perch is so tall and thick is
that is has some sort of equipment in it?

Could be , but in all 4 corners of every carraige? Maybe its some sort of
crash protection, I dunno. It just seems a silly design to me.

B2003

2009 stock (again)
 

In message
,
martin writes

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for leaning,
not for sitting.

1974? The bum perches in other stocks and pretty much flush up against the
wall with maybe a few inches behind. These things have about 9 inches of
wasted space behind them. Its the same story throughout the interior.

I meant 1973. Which, following extensive testing this morning, I can
confirm has space behind the bum rest, but it's too high up to
actually sit on.

I do find I have to wind the seat up a bit if the previous occupant
likes to sit on the floor;)

Perhaps the reason the panel below the perch is so tall and thick is
that is has some sort of equipment in it?

If you mean the ones at the ends of the cars, the ones between cars 3 &
4 certainly do; they house the emergency driving position for when the
train is split into two units and the valves to isolate the main line
air line. I'm not sure what's in the other ones - I'll have a look
sometime when I'm bored.
--
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)

2009 stock (again)
 

In message
, MIG
writes

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for leaning,
not for sitting.

1974? The bum perches in other stocks and pretty much flush up against the
wall with maybe a few inches behind. These things have about 9 inches of
wasted space behind them. Its the same story throughout the interior.

I meant 1973. Which, following extensive testing this morning, I can
confirm has space behind the bum rest, but it's too high up to
actually sit on.

Perhaps the reason the panel below the perch is so tall and thick is
that is has some sort of equipment in it?

But they are a recent addition, probably late 1990s. It's not their
original layout.

Before my time but didn't they appear at refurbishment when windows were
cut in the ends of the cars?
--
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)

2009 stock (again)
 

In article , ] (Steve
Fitzgerald) wrote:

In message
,
MIG writes

Isn't the same true of the 1974 stock? They're designed for
leaning, not for sitting.

1974? The bum perches in other stocks and pretty much flush up
against the wall with maybe a few inches behind. These things have
about 9 inches of wasted space behind them. Its the same story
throughout the interior.

I meant 1973. Which, following extensive testing this morning, I can
confirm has space behind the bum rest, but it's too high up to
actually sit on.

Perhaps the reason the panel below the perch is so tall and thick is
that is has some sort of equipment in it?

But they are a recent addition, probably late 1990s. It's not their
original layout.

Before my time but didn't they appear at refurbishment when windows
were cut in the ends of the cars?

That accords with my recollections, Steve. There were certainly no seats
in the car ends as the cars were built.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

2009 stock (again)
 

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:10:11 -0500
wrote:
In article , ] (Steve
Fitzgerald) wrote:
Before my time but didn't they appear at refurbishment when windows
were cut in the ends of the cars?

That accords with my recollections, Steve. There were certainly no seats
in the car ends as the cars were built.

No seats or windows and the walls were finished in a rather unfetching
babysick yellow colour IIRC.

B2003