Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-28 17:21:21 +0000, d said:

If they lower the train floors then they'll be ****ed on curved platforms
unless they reduce the width of the floor as per S stock which is a really
poor design decision for a packed tube train which needs all the standing
room it can get.

You seem about the only person I have spoken to that has anything other
than trivial dislikes about the S-Stock. To me it is so much better than
what went before that it is very difficult to criticise it.

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.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:30:28 -0500
Recliner wrote:
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

--
Spud

On 2014\10\29 10:07, d wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:30:28 -0500
Recliner wrote:
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

Class 313s?

On 2014-10-29 10:55:54 +0000, Basil Jet said:

On 2014\10\29 10:07, d wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:30:28 -0500
Recliner wrote:
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

Class 313s?

Certainly nicer than C-stock. Though I suppose I did grow up with them
(well, the internally identical 507s and 508s) on Merseyrail.

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

On 29/10/2014 11:09, Neil Williams wrote:
[...]
A huge improvement on the C Stock

Pretty much anything would be better than the C stock.

Class 313s?

Certainly nicer than C-stock. Though I suppose I did grow up with them
(well, the internally identical 507s and 508s) on Merseyrail.

I'd take an LU C stock over a Silverstink 313 any day!

(When LO took over, they started doing bizarre and unknown things such
as cleaning them...)

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

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.

Amersham has lost 2tph to Chesham, and its fast Met services, while the
Chiltern service, using smaller trains, hasn't increased. The S stock also
has fewer seats than the A stock. The promise had been that with the new
signalling, the Met service would increase to compensate for the reduced
seating, but the resignalling project is infamously delayed.

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.

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.

--
Spud

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.