Metropolitan line S stock

Thank you Peterc, I hadn't realised the inadequacies of the A60's during the peak hours between Baker Street and Aldgate.

Hmmm, well, be a bit careful. The reason the fasts have gone, and probably aren't coming back, is that a fast train means people at Northwood, Northwood Hills, Pinner, North Harrow, Northwick Park, Preston Road (and Wembley Park) get no train at all (a big negative for them and there are - these days - a lot more of them than there used to be). While the people north of Moor Park get what? Reduced journey times and an emptier train. Although, set against that, they are now able to board any train they like as far as Baker Street (best change at Great Portland Street and save the walk) and then any train they like as far as Harrow-on-the-Hill and then any train they like as far as Moor Park. In any case, the battle for priority between 'no train at all' and 'slower, busier train' is always gonna be won by 'no train at all' in a metro-style public transport system. I think you'll find 'the public' would prefer to be able to at least get on a train and the fact is, more of the public are helped by an all stations service (with a more minor inconvenience to everyone else (busier, slower trains)), than would be helped by fast services (with a much more significant inconvenience to everyone else (no train at all)).

Anyway, what I'm really tying to say is that the public can't have everything they want all the time, due to the harsh constraints of the laws of nature and economics. Sadly, and I really do mean this, it's also often the case that the public doesn't understand that what they would prefer would not be viable, or may even be worse for them. 'Operational reasons' is really code for: we'd like to give everyone what they would prefer, but we can't, so we have to try and put together the best service we can, from the resources we have, taking into account the principles of railway operations.

Now I'm not saying they always get it right - heavens no. I'm also not saying that there aren't people who lose out, that there aren't people adversely affected by change. There may be some merit in the idea that those more likely to lose out are those with less influence over the people making the decisions. And I don't mean to disenfranchise people who are trying to get themselves a better service and who have to suffer from the operational restrictions. By all means people should be given a voice to seek better transport opportunities. Indeed, I live in Roding Valley and, of course, I'd like a more frequent service. I'd like a through service. I'd like a lot of things. But be careful how you dismiss the absence of those things. Unless, of course, you're offering to pay, in which case, I'd like to make a few requests. Also, I know a guy who'd really like your number, because there are a few improvements to the ex-West Anglia services that could be made.


You're pushing at an open door with many people here, who much prefer "transverse seating".

Now, the thing about transverse seating is that you can fit more seats in the carriage - but, ultimately, fewer passengers in the carriage, overall. Longitudinal seating means there's more space overall in the carriage and more people can board the train, but fewer of them will be able to sit down, as there will be fewer seats. Longitudinal seats are also good for metro style systems where people take short journeys and where services are generally very crammed. They aid boarding and alighting as you don't have to pick your way round the furniture. However, they are generally agreed to be less comfortable, offer poorer views out the window (not a huge loss in a tunnel, really) and are not as liked by passengers.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the specific material the new seats are made from does feel quite uncomfortable to my bottom. I, also, do get a transverse seat if I can. However (and I know some people will be sharpening their axes at this), I never really liked the A stock interior very much. I found it very cluttered. I mean, there were a lot of seats, which is nice, but it was all seats. Very hard to make your way around. I felt quite claustrophobic, I found it difficult to alight and I also didn't like being squidged in the seats. I found they were too close together, so that your knees would be right up against those of the person across from you. And I hated sidling between people, with my bottom in their face, trying to sit down. Absolutely no room for a bag (although there were luggage racks, weren't there?)

Also, don't forget, the S stock arrangement allows for good wheelchair access. I take my hat off to anyone who ever braved an A stock in a wheelchair.

We forget the A stock was designed in the late 1940s and early 50s where there were fewer passengers. Although it wasn't really an option on the A stock the removal of a few seats in the same way as London overground did on the class 313 units would have helped in the later years.

As for the fast service perhaps with ATO a good compromise could be had with 6tph coming from Watford junction and say 2 extra stopping trains from chesham retaining the 8tph. The 2 Amersham trains could be run fast then.

The S-stock, and its obvious shortcomings for main-line service, are just another step in the relentless march to 'rationalise' the Met., the ultimate goal being the complete withdrawal of services beyond Harrow.

Let Chiltern run it, along with all services turning right at H0tH?

Oh gawd--not another mix-up of semi-compatible schemes!!

I wonder why they changed Crossrail from Aylesbury/Amersham to Maidenhead/Reading. Possibly Chiltern weren't happy. Any ideas?

I know what you mean but all transverse seating 2+2 would only gain 2 extra seats per car and this is not really worth it sadly.

Just to tie up the Crossrail history lesson - the Reading line was always in the plan but the Aylesbury route was extra.

Oh I MUCH prefer the A stock seating. And it really annoys me how tfl advertise 'all aboard, new spacious trains'. Of course they are spacious, if you have less and smaller seating! I hated travelling like cattle into London- I NEVER got a seat into town and occasionally got one at home time. I nearly always got a seat on the A stock, even if it involved clambering over people who would not move over. That was one of the drivers for me taking a lower paid local job. Subconsciously I reckon most passengers miss the old seating arrangement to a degree as on a fairly quiet train you can guarantee all the transverse seating will have gone first.

The 3 abreast seats in A stock became 2 abreast towards the end of its life, simply because people are much wider these days. The same issue has seen even supermini cars become as wide as larger cars.

Overall I find S stock a major advance on A stock. I much prefer lateral seats, and I can usually find one from Uxbridge. A bit more difficult travelling in the opposite direction, but some become free by Wembley or Harrow outside peak hours, when I usually travel.

/nerd/ I like to have a window seat so I can inspect the infrastructure! /nerd/

Hehe I'm sure they meant electrification of the Chiltern Line and use of EMUs. (Though perhaps you knew that and were just having us on, I don't know? )

To my mind the S stock has modern ambience, appears bright and spacious, is comfortable, air conditioned, accessible (level boarding and wheelchair/buggy space) and gives the look and feel of a modern system. The A stock had lots of seats and luggage/umbrella racks.

The need for extra capacity for more and larger people, coupled with the need to comply with disability regs and three wide doors per car between them obligate the loss of quite a lot of seats. And as Metman says, fully transverse 2+2 seating where feasible would only give 2 more seats per car, 16 per train. I find the longitudinal seating more convenient for my medium-length journeys (Liv St to Finchley Road or Wembley Park), largely because it's easier to get on and off.

With the need for 3 pairs of wide double doors per car and inner-city metro duties the new Metropolitan line trains were never going to have anywhere near the numbers of seats as on, say, the excellent South Western suburban Siemens Class 450.

We should consider ourselves lucky the Met S8s are not all-longitudinal as per S7 or Overground 378 (with notably harder seats). And that the As suvived as long as they did.

The mock ups were built on two withdrawn T stock motor cars and lasted in service till 1953. Both had fluorescent lighting and were train red. They must have looked strange in a brown set of T stock!

I agree with aldenham on ride quality.