S Stock

Fugly (sorry TOK) bloody thing that is. Plastic I assume. It will last about 10 years in London. It has all the wrong features. Those dangerous outside hung doors. Bum nummer seats. The wrong seating layout (It should be longitudinal one side and transverse the other or maybe like the 'R110' design that was tried in New York) Horrible 'cold comfort' strip lights and no character whatsoever. If they want to look at a good stock design they can't go far wrong in looking at the new 'G' stock in Berlin.

Don't like the looks of those C20 units either. Too rounded. They may be reliable but the body design is appalling

One would have thought that the 1933 TS would have taught people that streamlined fronts have no point at LU speeds and just waste space that could be used for passengers.

But don't forget this an SSR train which will run almost entirely in double track tunnel or outside, not deep tube.

Oh yeah, oops. -1 brain point.

I wouldn't have thought that a rounded front would make any consequential difference to the length of platform required for a train as any extra length should be forward of the cab door. A few stopping marks and mirrors/monitors might need to be moved slightly (a couple of feet at most I would imagine), but unless there are any VERY short gaps between the stopping point/platform end and the next signal section there shouldn't be any problem. I think sidings might be more of an issue in this regard - I think I remember reading somewhere (probably Dave's site) that a C stock is a very tight fit in some sidings (the Traingle ones I think were mentioned).

This brings me onto another point - if the S stock is going to be a universal replacement for A, C and D stocks how are they dealing with the differing lengths of the sets? Are they all going to be as short as a C stock - in which case what are the capacity issues? Or are they going to run in different formations (e.g. 3×2 cars on the Circle, 4×2 on the Met?). I don't imagine them wanting to spend money lengthing the short platforms, particularly if they've read the recent thread we had on the problems of achieving this at some locations.

Also is the seating layout going to be universally cattle-class like the C stocks, maximum seated like the A stocks or a compromise like the D stocks. If they are going to be run in different length formations and have different interior layours, doesn't this negate some of the advantage of having a single stock for all lines?

AFAIK the H&C will be six-car formations, the Circle and District seven-car, and the Met eight-car. Right now no one knows if subclasses of S stock will be built with seating constructed appropriately for each route (i.e. no seats for Circle trains, some seats for District and H&C trains, and lots and lots and lots of seats for Met trains).

Great minds think alike - but one clearly thinks more succinctly than the other!

Perhaps there is a plan to require passengers to have Oystercards surgically inserted into their posteriors, and readers under the seat upholstery so that we can be charged extra for sitting down

Pound to a penny some would still find a way!

i'd rather get one to begin with... unforunately i commute outwards from london and they don't do oyster where I go...

Just wondering, why on earth does the S Stock have those rounded fronts? I prefer the flat fronts used up till now. Still, some non-flat fronts look quite nice, like that of the new Hunter Railcar DMUs used exclusively on the Hunter Lines in Sydney.