Paul Corfield wrote on 07 July 2010 19:48:02 ...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

wrote on 06 July 2010 22:01:07 ...

How sad, the old victoria Line stock was comfortable and, in its time,
technically advanced. From what I read here the replacement stock
lacks its level of comfort.

I don't really like the new stock - I suppose I should like it but they
are a real disappointment [1]. The seats are too narrow, the seat
"cushions" have no cushioning and they are far too hard. The tip up
seats are little better - having had to endure one the other evening. I
pointed all this out at the mock up visit at Euston but clearly no one
took any notice.

There are also silly things like the windows are far too small and don't
stretch the entire length of the seating bay - this is a really
retrograde step in my view. Given the number of cross platform
interchanges on the Vic Line it can be important to be able to see the
opposite platform but the end seats in every bay have a wretched panel
opposite them rather than a window.

I don't understand that comment. Why is it "important" to be able to
see the opposite platform before you leave the train?

[snip]
On the contrary, it manages to stop at the right place every time
without the driver having to use the emergency brake, which makes it
much more comfortable for standing passengers than 67 stock.

Not in my experience - one had to crawl along a few millimetres at Seven
Sisters the other morning. I'm sure I've had other trains "micro
adjust" their stopping point.

Crawling a few millimetres will still be more comfortable than using the
emergency brake.

And having
all longitudinal seating means more space for standing passengers, so
that's a comfort benefit too. I can't comment on seat comfort as
they're always full up when I travel, which I suppose means they can't
be that bad. :-)

All the longitudinal seating means is that there are fewer seats which
is no good really.

"No good" from whose point of view? Not from the point of view of
people who would have been left on the platform because of the lower
capacity of 67 stock.

Basically my point was that in terms of moving large numbers of
passengers in safety and reasonable comfort, the new trains are a better
fit-for-purpose than the old ones. All this stuff about the view from
the windows and whether the seats need more padding for your 10-minute
journey sound a bit Luddite to me. I take your point about hand-holds
for standing passengers, which are important. (In that context I've
never understood why the rail above the doors in 92 stock is a
near-invisible grey instead of the red of all the other hand-holds.)

Two other queries:

- In your experience how does the ventilation system compare with 67
stock? The window configuration is partly determined by the ducting
between the low-level air intakes and the outlets at head height, which
was supposed to improve ventilation.

- Have the problems with the doors been related to the new "sensitive
edge" feature to detect obstructions?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)