My very first ride on an S stock.

Might get crowded too easily, i remember when me and my friend once travelled to Wembley Park from Central London and standing up was uncomfortable as the only place we were able to stand was by the doors. Some other tube lines also have a journey around 1 hour.

I don't find it too uncomfortable to stand up on a train when i have space and i know some ppl who prefer standing up on a train instead of sitting down.

Yes, but if I understand metman's post (happy to be corrected), only because it wasn't designed for anything except longitudinal seating in the first place - the reason it only would have added 16 seats per train is because it's a generic stock that has to cope with longitudinal seating layout which presumably dictates where the under-seat equipment is placed. Unlike a class 378?

This is my reason for questioning the assertion that the S-stock is explicitly designed for Baker Street to Amersham runs.

You'd have to spend a hell of a lot of money if you wanted to get the A stock back up and running properly. New motors, new bogies, a lot of stuff.. When the upgrade is complete the line performance will be far better than it has been for the past decade and some (though journey times compared to the old 70mph speed is questionable).

To get A stock up to scratch would cost more than the S stock for certain.

The S stock is likely geared for acceleration (though I can't see why this should be such a limiting factor with all axles motored) preventing a high top speed without revving the living -cough- out of the motors.

prjb?

That's a bit of a circular argument. If there is a certain amount of equipment which has to go under seats, then it doesn't matter whether the seats are longitudinal or transverse, so long as the decision is made early enough in the design process. The main reason for less seating will be other things such as the wider doors and the area with tip-up seats. If you actually look at the seating in the S-stock and 'turn round' the longitudinal seats, you can see that you won't gain many extra transverse seats per car.

Surely the stock is explicitly designed for Metropolitan line journeys. As others have said, you can't have a separate fleets for the long distance services to/from Amersham/Chesham; the shorter distance services with higher frequency (Watford/Uxbridge) and the City section, so there has to be compromise between the various demands on the stock.

Added
Bah, beaten to it by Cityboy!! ;D

I agree a bit, but:

a) Not everything will last forever and will need to be replaced anyway
b) To get some of the new features into the A stock trains would be a bit awkward
c) We have enough mish-mashes of old and new technology bodged together on the Underground - we don't need any more!

Are you taking the mick mate?

Those 50 year old trains probably don't have crumple zones and the bodyshell is probably about as thin as a tin can. The new trains are miles tougher and as a result better for passenger safety.

Why replace the Bakerloo line trains first? A60/62 is older, I'm sure you can count...

Air conditioning! Not possible without walkthrough carriages, also if the air con unit failed on one carriage air will pass through from another carriage, if they were sealed units trains would be taken out of service more often.

Signalling ring any bells? You'd have to spend money modifying the old fleet to make them compatible with the signalling. And they can't do Automatic train operation.

Bogies? 50 years old and probably beyond starting to crack. Motors...too slow for todays needs.

Perhaps you also forgot about the millions of immigrants in a short space of time under the last Labour Government which has put 'extra' strain on our services. We are now in a position where more passengers are travelling than ever before. More standing space is one factor that TFL is often criticised about. Hell even the 92ts on the Central doesn't have enough standing space yet look at how wide the doors are!

I really don't think you have considered your post and the relevance to this thread. Perhaps your post would be more suitable in the Fantasy section if there is one...

With moving block signalling cramming only 20tph down the line will be more than easy!

A stock were quite well suited to the old Underground. Not today.

Speed restrictions on the line are because of a) bad track and b) deficient bogie designs. ISTR the bogie design was old when it was put onto the A stock!

S stock are easily accessible as well, and have plenty of little things that just make the difference!

They have been since I think it was March!

There's normally 1 diagram operating to Aldgate off-peak on weekdays at the moment AIUI. Last time I was out, they ran two diagrams UXB - BST and one UXB - ALD.

It isn't test running, though!

In the case of derailment a walkthrough train makes evacuation much easier. If a minor derailment (with the train still upright) passengers can just walk down the train to the point of evacuation (either a side door or down the evacuation steps installed at the ends of the train). In a more serious incident, for example with some carriages overturned, the large gangways at the end of each car should make access much easier. Imagine trying to get out of an A stock car lying on its side after a serious incident.

The bomb threat has been discussed in more than enough detail on here in the past for me to say that you have nothing to worry about in this regard. Obviously it's a very sensitive subject and so I'm just going to advise you to look at past discussions.

I don't understand why you think walk through carriages will have any impact on the survivability of a derailment? Unless it's a catastrophic derailment (which is very unlikely on LU because of the speeds and absence of level crossings) then the strongly connected cars will act to hold the train together, reducing the injuries. Another thing to consider is that the S stock has a much greater designed survivability than the A stocks did - and being much older the latter's structural strength will have decreased since manufacture.

The the train faults on the Jubilee are predominantly due to the new signalling system, not the trains in isolation, and so that's not directly comparable, and it will also get increasingly reliable as it beds in. The A stocks are only going to get less reliable as time goes on. The only way they would have the same reliability as modern trains would be to build, from scratch, new trains to the A62 design - which just isn't going to meet modern requirements.

As for the signalling and track changes you mention - where are you getting the month from to do all this? Two more platforms at Baker Street would almost certainly require demolition of some very expensive buildings. You would need far more than just some improved signalling between Harrow and Finchley Road to run 5tph to Chesham! Does it even need that level of service provision?
Even if you did upgrade the signalling, the A stock wouldn't be capable of safely doing the 60-70mph because of it's age.

It wasn't a fool, it was an engineer who rather cleverly worked out that the shortest platform needs four doors cut out to achieve all doors in the platform. When a driver overrides the CSDE system the front and rear four doors are cut out in order to ensure that all doors are on the platform and that you don't fall out.

How many more times does it need to be explained that we modelled 2+2 seating and it didn't work! Customer numbers are rising year on year and standing space is becoming increasingly important.
So, for clarity, 2+2 seating on an 'S' Stock doesn't work.