Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 23:30:24 GMT
Sorry but as someone who uses the D-stock every day I can assure you they are awful trains. Slow, rubbish interior layout (including facing seats which make for a very narrow gangway, and tip-up seats which end up falling off, or making a tremendous bang when they close), and single-leaf doors (which means they get blocked by anyone standing even near the doors when the trains pull into the station). The C-stock are actually slightly better, whenever I get one of those - the interior layout is better, they've got double-leaf doors and they're slightly faster. Of course, eventually the whole lot will be swept away by S7 stock, but the D-stock are terrible. I don't know what the idea behind single-leaf doors was but it means when I get off at Mile End I have to push through a group of people that have accumulated around a narrow doorway.
I did use the A-stock a bit when they ran the East London line - to be honest their time had come. Admittedly the S8 stock isn't perfect but you're not going to keep the A-stock going forever, it had its time and I think really the replacement is perfectly adequate. However, it lasting as long as the A-stock is something I very much doubt. I know a lot of people idolise the A-stock but the interior layout wasn't fantastic - as I discover on the D-line, a very narrow gangway caused by horizontal seats is never a brilliant arrangement. I for one look forward to the replacement of the D-stock, though I might've stopped using them by the time they finally arrive!
|
|
|
Post by daveb0789 on Nov 29, 2012 0:01:28 GMT
TBH I don't get why people call A stock slow off the mark. They're not really IMO. They're built for fast speeds, not acceleration unlike S8s which are Built for quick acceleration. They were pretty fast off the mark and as it was 1960/1950 technology, you'd expect em to be slow The A stock can take nearly 30 seconds to reach 30 mph. As for fast speeds they are tube trains not express main line trains.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 29, 2012 1:54:36 GMT
The only ones I miss are the 1967 stock that ran the Victoria Line - lovely trains in every aspect and the new Victoria Line stock isn't a patch on them in every way. Saying that, the new Victoria Line are decent though.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 1, 2012 7:53:15 GMT
The only ones I miss are the 1967 stock that ran the Victoria Line - lovely trains in every aspect and the new Victoria Line stock isn't a patch on them in every way. Saying that, the new Victoria Line are decent though. (sigh) I miss that overheating traction motor smell after a the train's been thrashed between Highbury&Islington and Finsbury Park Noticed that the moquette is getting fairly grubby of late on the newer Vic stock, which is a shame
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 1, 2012 13:46:34 GMT
S stock are still a bit slow off the mark IMHO They're much faster than the grindingly slow D-stock they'll eventually be replacing, I hope. C-stock actually seem to be slightly faster. I didn't know the D stock were being replaced so soon after refurbishment. It was only about three years ago I saw a refurbished one on the M25 (one car unit being hauled by a lorry).
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 1, 2012 13:50:30 GMT
Well to my knowledge they are restricted because of signalling constraints. Once resignalling is completed they'll be automatic like the Jubilee line. A bit like the 95/96 stock trains on the northern line, which are still governed at 60% power, almost 13 years now.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 1, 2012 13:59:51 GMT
I don't want the D stock to go as they are nice trains and sound good as well. I believe they may have the same motors as the 73 stock on the Picadilly line, they sound identical despite the Picadilly line being a lot quicker off the mark. The 83 and 86 stock that were on the Jubilee line also sound the same.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 1, 2012 15:16:37 GMT
The only ones I miss are the 1967 stock that ran the Victoria Line - lovely trains in every aspect and the new Victoria Line stock isn't a patch on them in every way. Saying that, the new Victoria Line are decent though. I also miss those 67 stock, as well as the thirty odd identical 72 stock that were withdrawn ahead of the 59 stock on the northern line in 2000. Thankfully the Bakerloo line still have that breed for the moment, the Jubilee line's original stock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 15:34:42 GMT
They're much faster than the grindingly slow D-stock they'll eventually be replacing, I hope. C-stock actually seem to be slightly faster. I didn't know the D stock were being replaced so soon after refurbishment. It was only about three years ago I saw a refurbished one on the M25 (one car unit being hauled by a lorry). 2015 is the date for their replacement, so they've got a couple of years left in them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 15:35:41 GMT
The only ones I miss are the 1967 stock that ran the Victoria Line - lovely trains in every aspect and the new Victoria Line stock isn't a patch on them in every way. Saying that, the new Victoria Line are decent though. I also miss those 67 stock, as well as the thirty odd identical 72 stock that were withdrawn ahead of the 59 stock on the northern line in 2000. Thankfully the Bakerloo line still have that breed for the moment, the Jubilee line's original stock. The potential design for the replacement of the Bakerloo and Piccadilly's stock looks pretty odd, and not much like a proper Tube train!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 1, 2012 18:47:49 GMT
I also miss those 67 stock, as well as the thirty odd identical 72 stock that were withdrawn ahead of the 59 stock on the northern line in 2000. Thankfully the Bakerloo line still have that breed for the moment, the Jubilee line's original stock. The potential design for the replacement of the Bakerloo and Piccadilly's stock looks pretty odd, and not much like a proper Tube train! Is that the train on the wikipedia page of the 1972 stock? It looks absolutely horrid if thats going to be the replacement, surely let Bombardier build it instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 20:28:44 GMT
The potential design for the replacement of the Bakerloo and Piccadilly's stock looks pretty odd, and not much like a proper Tube train! Is that the train on the wikipedia page of the 1972 stock? It looks absolutely horrid if thats going to be the replacement, surely let Bombardier build it instead. To be honest, it's no point having a fancy design if it's not going to be any more functional than something simple - look at the Optare Tempo - looks pretty good, but it's nonetheless awful. Meanwhile, the simple Pointer Dart is usually good. Same with trains - the Networkers and Electrostars are nothing particular special but they're good trains.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 2, 2012 1:15:08 GMT
Is that the train on the wikipedia page of the 1972 stock? It looks absolutely horrid if thats going to be the replacement, surely let Bombardier build it instead. To be honest, it's no point having a fancy design if it's not going to be any more functional than something simple - look at the Optare Tempo - looks pretty good, but it's nonetheless awful. Meanwhile, the simple Pointer Dart is usually good. Same with trains - the Networkers and Electrostars are nothing particular special but they're good trains. Indeed but I would like the design to look decent as well as functional
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2012 11:43:07 GMT
To be honest, it's no point having a fancy design if it's not going to be any more functional than something simple - look at the Optare Tempo - looks pretty good, but it's nonetheless awful. Meanwhile, the simple Pointer Dart is usually good. Same with trains - the Networkers and Electrostars are nothing particular special but they're good trains. Indeed but I would like the design to look decent as well as functional There are functional things that don't look so decent. Look at the Scania Omnicity
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 2, 2012 12:32:33 GMT
Indeed but I would like the design to look decent as well as functional There are functional things that don't look so decent. Look at the Scania Omnicity The Omnicity DD is only functional in a mechanical way and even then it's only reliability & speed. It's not functional in a comfort sense due to the suspension and the seats on certain examples. IMO the Omnicity looks lovely.
|
|