New Arrival.

Funny you should say that; as I've been thinking for a while now that the S Stock has more than a passing resemblance to the tanks!

Must be the mix of longitudinal and transverse seating, I suppose. F stock also went like the wind - so perhaps there is more in this comparison than you might think.

That's more or less it Chris M. Want a job ;D

I'm not trying to make a case for 'S' Stock, the bespoke design (which was designed by experienced railway personnel in both engineering and operations as well as actual train drivers) will stand the test of time and cater for today's customer numbers as well as those going forward. I never said that the 'S' was an exact replica of a 'C' Stock, I merely pointed out that if you wanted to liken it to a 'C' then I would take that as a compliment based on the fact they do their job better than any other SSR train.

Gosh, I forgot that the Met is so special that it must have special treatment (even though customers coming in from Upminster into the city travel for longer distances), if you're looking for special status for the Met from me then you had better look elsewhere and I'm not alone on this forum in not buying into that historical myth (give it up Metroland Man - it's all over).


The 40mph restriction is due to wheel/rail interface issues, but of course we'll just sweep over the fact that 'A' Stock are limited to 50mph due to the bogies falling apart. Mind you, even if we did up the speed limit it would still take them a 'month of Sundays' to get there. Not to mention the fact the nasty seats and substandard suspension would bounce people all over the car.


Again I never said that, I merely pointed out I would take your attempt to be negative as a compliment based on the aforementioned reasons. I think that being blinkered is hanging on to the past and not accepting that change needs to happen. I think that being blinkered is ignoring the fact that customer numbers are on the rise and we need a train design that reflects that. I think that being blinkered is thinking that the Met line is in some way special and warrants different treatment regardless of the fact that the majority of the SSR customers travel in a completely different fashion. But thats just me of course.

I must have missed you at the three years worth of design reviews I attended, where were you? Feel free to make it up as you go along but don't expect me to agree with you. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but I spent a large part of the design process on the placement of the TBC and involved ergonomic experts, train operators, and experienced railway engineers in the process until we got it correct.

The placement of the TBC has nothing to do with being left or right handed, it's a fact. I am extremely right handed and drove a 'C' Stock for 8 years. By your rationale 'A' Stock drivers would have terrible trouble when braking. You do not need fine motor skills for operating a TBC. You do however need fine motor skills to operate buttons and controls when the train is in motion and as such it made sense (after 13 months of cab design and stalling the whole design process until we got it right) to place the TBC on the left. Furthermore the TBC and all it's associated equipment take up a lot of room, by placing it on the left we were able to place most of the equipment for the TBC in the 'A' Pillar, had it of been on the right it would have taken up a lot of room and would have restricted movement around the cab. In addition the majority of this trains life will be spent in ATO, so again it made sense to place the TBC in an area where it took up less space in an otherwise enormous cab.


I'm glad you are glad. Like I said earlier, I must have missed you at the design reviews where you formed this incorrect opinion of how the train was developed.

I think therein lies the problem (not you being a C stock fan PRJB... ;D)
The C stock is a good high density train. However you wouldn't want to commute from Amersham to Aldgate on one, nor Ealing Broadway to Upminster. As much as anyhting else, the more door space, the more space to let heat out during the winter (will the air con be able to work as a heater too?).

If the S stock design is intended to make light work of the short hop journeys it will obviously have been designed for that work. Hence those who do make long distance commutes are less likely to compare the new trains favourably alongside the old.
Thus we're back to the original problem - it's a 'one size fits all' train being introduced on different services with varying characteristics that don't lend themselves to such designs.

(This isn't intended as a criticism btw - merely an observation)

Again Tom, I never said we designed the 'S' to replicate a 'C' - I was just pointing out that I consider the attempt at negativity to be a compliment. S8's have a different seating layout to the S7 fleet based on the fact that Met commuters made their case quite strongly. We also tried very hard to come up with a 2+2 design (like an 'A' Stock) but it just didn't work on a train which has to be narrower than an 'A' Stock.

The seats have lost all their padding.

Sorry, I missed this post first time around.

As the operating official for the move over the LU network I liaised with the test crews beforehand and the decision was taken to walk the train through each platform. We stopped before the first 'S' Stock car reached the platform, got out, walked the train through the platform, stopped the train once the leadng 'S' Stock car was through and then reboarded the Class 20. I was checking (along with the Person In Charge of the Train) guaging between the platform and train, clearance of canopies, clearance of other railway infrastructure and platform furniture, as well as any other possible hazards.

The move went with very few issues.

I had an excellent demonstration of this recently, when I travelled on the Isle of Wight 38 stock trains a handful of days before travelling on the musuem 38 stock on the JLE. The track quality on the latter led to a vastly superior ride quality.

And Fenchurch Street is somewhere?

Surely metman ment it in terms of how close to the city you are. From Fenchurch Street you have a 10min walk if that; from Marylebone you have to get another train or a bus.

Thats very true. Perhaps in time Chelney or Crossrail 2 will help alieviate this, but at the moment its probably the most painful journey to take.

While the A stock are slower off the mark than a C stock, the A's are always thought to be holding the road up because people think they go to slow. What gets forgotten is that they are longer than a C, so take longer to clear a signalling section and they require a greater breaking distance as they are heavier. An A stock T/Op should have the Weak Field Flag Switch down at Finchley Road on the South to give faster acceleration in the City. The flag switch is then put back in the Up position at Finchley Road on the North.
As to the bogie problem, that is not a flaw in the A stock design, but a lack of investment over the years in the track replacement programme on the Met. As a result, the bogies have taken a hammering and have done well to have lasted so long.
Re: the flatted wheels from going "off the clock", in leaf fall season an A stock T/Op would apply the brake a greater distance than normal from the station. If the wheels locked up, the brake would be released, the Master Controller set to series (to keep the wheels turning) and the brake slowly reapplied until almost at a stand, when the Master Controller would then be shut off.
One thing you will notice in the winter, while the A stock T/Op is in his shirt sleeves in a nice warm cab, and the passengers are nice and comfortable, you can't help feeling sorry when you see the C stock T/Op with a woolly hat on his head and a big coat on. The passengers are also freezing in the saloon as the heaters are rubbish. The A stock may have its faults, but it's lasted 50 years and had it been properly maintained over the years, it would probably last 50 more!

What will the S stock be like in 30 years time if investment in LUL ceases again, thats the question. The wheels are smaller to allow a lower car floor level, right? Was having a tube stock like arrangement considered; albeit with NR size large wheels?

Don't forget that D stock has already set the precedence in terms of sub surface stock with 'tube size' wheels......