|
Post by movingmillion on Aug 14, 2019 5:48:00 GMT
Hi all.
I am wondering whether anyone has all the S Stock concept art seen here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070208064234/http://www.districtlinephotos.co.uk/html/s_stock.html) and formerly on the Metronet website? Do any copies of these pictures still exist?
Thanks, Movingmillion
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Aug 14, 2019 9:49:47 GMT
Hi all. I am wondering whether anyone has all the S Stock concept art seen here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070208064234/http://www.districtlinephotos.co.uk/html/s_stock.html) and formerly on the Metronet website? Do any copies of these pictures still exist? Thanks, Movingmillion
Sorry but I’m unable to unscramble the link you posted to make it accessible for all. There were early drawings of S Stock showing the proposed 6-, 7- and 8-car variations and the differing internal layouts.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Aug 14, 2019 11:36:01 GMT
Now there's a blast from the past! movingmillion the website you're referring to was my first stab at building one myself. For various reasons I never got far with it and of course it now no longer exists. I have still got most of the images that I originally used on it, though some of the files are now corrupted. Unfourtunatley I don't have anything relating to the original S stock designs though. Probably the best person to ask is prjb as he was very involved in the design and build of S stock......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 22:19:55 GMT
Regarding S Stock technical drawings, recently I was scouring the internet for technical drawings of the 1992 Tube Stock, when I stumbled upon correspondence between a enthusiast and a TfL staff regarding L.U rollingstock drawings, the enthusiast wanted highly detailed technical drawings of underfloor equipment, however the TfL staff informed the enthusiast that for security reasons such information isn’t available to the general public as it could end up in the wrong hands (ie terrorists); therefore when it comes to existing rollingstock in currently service only basic drawings are available to the general public. Once a batch of rollingstock has been scrapped only then it becomes safe for such drawings to be made public. Now that the D.78 Stock is no longer in service, so much research material will have been made available to the general public, so anyone who desires to commission a specialist model engineer to build them a 1”-1’ scale D Stock bows your chance.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 6, 2019 23:46:42 GMT
movingmillion are the images at the archive of Metronet's website what you were thinking of? If not, it might be worth asking TfL (via FOI if necessary) as they probably acquired Metronet's archives when they brought it back in house.
|
|
|
Post by howda62 on Oct 7, 2019 9:02:47 GMT
movingmillion Prompted by an early concept image of the new SSL trains I just saw in the back of Clive Foxell's Rails to Metroland book (printed 2005), copyright accredited to Bombardier, I've managed to locate a copy of said image online: I also found a clip of the same image in a BalfourBeatty presentation online dated 2003, so it's at least that vintage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 15:13:07 GMT
Who the hell loves the Underground S Stock? L🤣L. No seriously fellas, the S Stock doesn’t appeal to me for the following reasons: For a start, the first sets of double doors directly behind the drivers cab are noticeably narrower than the other double leaf passenger doors, which ruins the design. I wouldn’t be surprised if at a earlier stage someone had got the measurements wrong regarding the maximum car and train length, upon realising this it was perhaps too late to rectify without it costing millions more the the tight budget; this presumably it was decided to instead reduce the width of those doors rather than going back to the drawing board. Another aspect of the S Stock I dislike is the fact that instead of continuing with the modern concept of flush glazing, the S Stock is built with rubber window surrounds, this old concept on a 21st century train ruins the S Stock; perhaps it was cheaper to build than with flush glazing. Another aspect of the S Stock I dislike is the fact that the overall design of the body-shell makes these trains look very similar to modern national railway trains. There was a period in history when even Sub-Surface Underground trains looked and sounded very different from national railway trains, with the S Stock sadly it is no longer the case. The preliminary design concept for the S Stock looks WORSE than the later interpretation of the design brief, I’m glad they didn’t opt for that. Another aspect of the S Stock that is at odds is the type of lightning used for the interiors, presumably the decision was influenced by passenger feedback from the previous 10 or so years, resulting in a lighting design adopted that would give a warm ambience to the interiors of the S Stock. However the choice of lighting for interiors should be influenced by 2 factors 1) the interior design elements, 2) the interior colour scheme. Therefore considering that the design elements of the S Stock are modern, thus the warm ambience doesn’t blend well; instead the interiors should have been kitted out using super-bright white LEDs as the subsequent ambience will have harmonised with the modern interior. As much as I love the warm ambience of the pre 1967 rollingstock, it just doesn’t blend with modern interiors.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Oct 7, 2019 16:29:06 GMT
I could make an attempt to sprinkle some facts on this situation, but instead I’m just going to laugh.
Thanks for funniest thing I’ve read all day. 🤣
(It might be your opinion, but it’s also all utter rubbish.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 16:59:52 GMT
To MoreToJack. You disagreed with my criticisms of the S Stock by describing what I have stated as being “Rubbish”; your defense of the S Stock couldn’t be any weaker. In order to be in with a chance of destroying my arguments you need to present compelling arguments backed up with EVIDENCE. At least my critique of the S Stock is based on facts. Just as a lawyer in a criminal case cannot win by merely calling facts presented by the opposition as being rubbish, you too need to respond in a intelligent way by presenting facts; therefore it is you who is the farcical clown.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Oct 7, 2019 17:46:40 GMT
Four and a half years' front-line experience working with the S stock tells me everything I need to know. I have the facts to disprove what you're saying, I just don't see the point in actually posting them because it's clear you're not going to even consider changing your "opinion". Regular Tube users will know how much better the S stock are than the trains they have replaced, and that's what matters. On a separate note, you might want to have a quick read of the forum rules, particularly 5.G. - there's a far broader audience here than just "fellas".
|
|
|
Post by cudsn15 on Oct 7, 2019 18:09:01 GMT
Personally I think the S stock are the best fleet on the underground. It's like all the niggling issues that befell all the previous stock leading up to them have finally been addressed and virtually eliminated. Once the 4LM signalling is completed I expect even more improvements when it comes to their performance. From a passenger perspective they tick all the boxes for comfort and design and if frequency improves with new signalling even the crush loading during the peaks MAY possible be eased for a time. They are a triumph. Time will tell how they will perform once they reach half life age but I'm optimistic they will be working hard with minimal issues. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 18:13:23 GMT
MoreToJack. So you have worked with the S Stock for 4.5 years, if so why are you reluctant to prove your expertise by presenting compelling arguments?; reason being is that you are incapable of arguing in your defence. Nothing I have stated about the S Stock is solely opinion based, ie it is a fact that the passenger doors directly behind the drivers cab are noticeably narrower, this according to rules on design is a flaw. Also compare modern passenger trains operating in the south-east with the S Stock and you will notice the similarities in terms of body-shell design with that of the S Stock, so this too is a fact. I was also right in my criticism of the use of rubber window surrounds, as this S Stock feature is a step backwards considering advances in design and technology has enabled flush glazing without the use of rubber window surrounds which cheapen the S Stock.Also what I stated about the ambience of the S Stock interiors being at odds with the interior design elements is also a fact not an opinion, if you had a art & design background you will know that warm ambience from lighting is best suited to traditional interior design elements, ie no one intelligent would install white LED lighting in a room with Victorian style decor and furniture. Likewise the modern interior of the S Stock would harmonise better using ultra white LED lighting. Lastly I never said that the S Stock is bad, I merely pointed out design flaws. However for the most part the S Stock is very good, plus from the perspective of the general public the S Stock is very practical. You are clearly incapable of presenting a intelligent argument in defense of your OPINIONS, unless you are going to back your opinions and boasting don’t message at all, otherwise you’re just making yourself look stupid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 18:22:04 GMT
Cudsn, you stated that the S Stock ticks all the right boxes when it comes to the design of the S Stock, tell me wouldn’t you say that the noticeably narrower passenger doors behind the drivers cab are a design flaw considering that all other doors are of consistent width?; achieving a consistent with of all double leaf passenger doors was possible to achieve had the S Stock been designed and built with having one large window between doors thus reducing the total width taken up by windows will have enabled all double leaf doors to be built to the exact same dimensions. You obviously know very little about harmony in design, I have studied Industrial Design
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Oct 7, 2019 18:25:27 GMT
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Oct 7, 2019 18:29:50 GMT
MoreToJack. So you have worked with the S Stock for 4.5 years, if so why are you reluctant to prove your expertise by presenting compelling arguments?; reason being is that you are incapable of arguing in your defence. Nothing I have stated about the S Stock is solely opinion based, ie it is a fact that the passenger doors directly behind the drivers cab are noticeably narrower, this according to rules on design is a flaw. Also compare modern passenger trains operating in the south-east with the S Stock and you will notice the similarities in terms of body-shell design with that of the S Stock, so this too is a fact. I was also right in my criticism of the use of rubber window surrounds, as this S Stock feature is a step backwards considering advances in design and technology has enabled flush glazing without the use of rubber window surrounds which cheapen the S Stock.Also what I stated about the ambience of the S Stock interiors being at odds with the interior design elements is also a fact not an opinion, if you had a art & design background you will know that warm ambience from lighting is best suited to traditional interior design elements, ie no one intelligent would install white LED lighting in a room with Victorian style decor and furniture. Likewise the modern interior of the S Stock would harmonise better using ultra white LED lighting. Lastly I never said that the S Stock is bad, I merely pointed out design flaws. However for the most part the S Stock is very good, plus from the perspective of the general public the S Stock is very practical. You are clearly incapable of presenting a intelligent argument in defense of your OPINIONS, unless you are going to back your opinions and boasting don’t message at all, otherwise you’re just making yourself look stupid I'm not sure where to start with this. The job of the train in question is to get people from A to B as efficiently as possible. As far as I'm aware there are no 'rules' on design as it is entirely at the designers discretion. It's quite likely that there are technical reasons for the doors being narrower and extremely unlikely that it was a mistake as it involved making a seperate jig and therefore an added expense. ADMIN HAT: I would also warn you about your last sentence. I don't like the tone and would caution against further use of derogatory language. You do not decide who can and can't post on this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 18:48:11 GMT
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. No point saying “You really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about”; back your BASELESS statements with by presenting compelling arguments based on FACTS. To the moderator who stated that according to him there are no rules to the art of ‘Designing’; you obviously haven’t studied graphic or industrial design. One of the rules to interior design is that all the design elements must harmonise as well as with the type of lighting used. If there are no rules to ‘design’ then why would L.U.L spend £500,000 on commissioning a industrial design firm to design the next generation of rollingstock?;
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Oct 7, 2019 18:56:05 GMT
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. No point saying “You really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about”; back your BASELESS statements with by presenting compelling arguments based on FACTS. To the moderator who stated that according to him there are no rules to the art of ‘Designing’; you obviously haven’t studied graphic or industrial design. One of the rules to interior design is that all the design elements must harmonise as well as with the type of lighting used. If there are no rules to ‘design’ then why would L.U.L spend £500,000 on commissioning a industrial design firm to design the next generation of rollingstock?; The Administrator who made the comment about 'rules' was me so you'll do me the honour of getting my name and title correct in future - and you'll also do well to re-read the terms of your admission to this forum on the email I sent you when you applied.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 7, 2019 19:08:29 GMT
Just a few notes re some of the points raised by jay; 1. The first set of doors behind the cab is narrower so as to allow space for 3 full seats between there and the cab backwall rather than just two. The more limited space served by this doorway was deemed to mitigate the narrower throughway. I don't think it offends the eye, but acknowledge others' opinions may differ. Also of course you may debate the size of the cab and the value/cost of making the train longer still...
2. The glazing system was chosen for two reasons; the poor longevity of previous bonded flush glazing which has needed expensive repair to address corrosion pushing the bonding off and secondly, to permit faster window renewal and return to service after any spate of vandalism. Again, I think the glazing looks quite reasonable, but certainly not as slick as say the windows in 96TS.
3. Regarding the saloon lighting, remember that the basic train design and equipment specification was done in 2005 - 2006. At that time, LED lighting suitable for whole saloon interiors was relatively new. Products from that time were not all that reliable and have now been superseded so the cautious selection of fluorescent tubes has saved a round of premature obsolescence. LUL/BT chose Warm White to blend with the LUL Ivory panelling. Nothing technical to stop Daylight tubes being substituted. Metronet did that on the older stocks in an attempt to faintly blue tint everything and generate an alleged 'cleaner' feel and gain 'Ambience Points' under the PPP. My opinion is that S stock should stick with Warm White and that it goes well with the decor. YMMV!
4. Lastly, returning to the narrow doorway behind the cab, if it had been normal width with standard interior layout between it and the next doorway, the train would need an additional 400mm of station platform at each end. This would certainly have increased the number of stations that would have needed one doorway isolated with the SDO feature. Immediately to mind, West Harrow SB, Goldhawk Road WB and with a bit of effort I could list others. I doubt those would have warranted yet further expense on platform lengthening.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Oct 7, 2019 19:23:03 GMT
For a start, the first sets of double doors directly behind the drivers cab are noticeably narrower than the other double leaf passenger doors, which ruins the design. I wouldn’t be surprised if at a earlier stage someone had got the measurements wrong regarding the maximum car and train length, upon realising this it was perhaps too late to rectify without it costing millions more the the tight budget; this presumably it was decided to instead reduce the width of those doors rather than going back to the drawing board. The doors are narrower behind the drivers cab for that very reason - the presence of the drivers cab. It's no design flaw. You don't seem to have spotted the narrow window on the MS car, in the area where the tip up seats are. Again, quite deliberate and not a design flaw. Another aspect of the S Stock I dislike is the fact that the overall design of the body-shell makes these trains look very similar to modern national railway trains. That's beacuse the S stock shares it's DNA with Bombardier's electrostar product. Another aspect of the S Stock that is at odds is the type of lightning used for the interiors, presumably the decision was influenced by passenger feedback from the previous 10 or so years, resulting in a lighting design adopted that would give a warm ambience to the interiors of the S Stock. Yep, exactly right. You can bang on about design principles all you like but the very reason S stock has the lighting it has is as you guessed in your opening sentance. On a more general point, is there any chance you can add gaps between your paragraphs so that your posts are easier to read? To MoreToJack. You disagreed with my criticisms of the S Stock by describing what I have stated as being “Rubbish”; your defense of the S Stock couldn’t be any weaker. In order to be in with a chance of destroying my arguments you need to present compelling arguments backed up with EVIDENCE. At least my critique of the S Stock is based on facts. Just as a lawyer in a criminal case cannot win by merely calling facts presented by the opposition as being rubbish, you too need to respond in a intelligent way by presenting facts; therefore it is you who is the farcical clown. Jay......"I dislike" is an opinion, not a fact.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 7, 2019 20:14:51 GMT
I thought that the narrower doors behind the cabs were a design feature.... included to make it possible to have seats on both sides and a cab.
I am critical of some aspects of the S stock (eg: stone age passenger information [see below] and 'seating layout', especially on the Metropolitan and District lines -all longitudinal' is OK for Circle / Hammersmith & City lines).
But there is no question that their quality of ride is far superior to the former A stock, and possibly C and D stocks too. I very much suspect that passengers appreciate this more than worry about aspects of interior design. Maybe some passengers would prefer lights that do not shine on to the windows? By this I mean that the light is more focused 'straight down' so that its easier to see out the windows when in open air - especially at night?
re: the passenger information, especially the S7s need their amber LED displays replacing with LCD displays as per the Class 345 and 710 trains! These show route maps that even people who do not understand English will find informative! My experience (interacting with confused passengers) has shown me that the present system with voice messages, LED text and two different sets of paper maps is especially unsuited for visitors to London. In their naivety they look at the paper maps without realising that for many journeys the map they are looking at has useless information! At a minimum the paper maps should comprise the single subsurface map (District, Circle, H&C) which was discussed here around the time these trains came out.
The 710s actually have two sets of LCD displays, I am thinking of the type that goes across the carriage* width - not the display integrated with the advertising. Their scrolling message routine includes maps showing the next few stations - for me this is the absolute minimum that is needed, I still wish for what I have seen overseas - this being maps with a light at each station showing the full route to be travelled, a flashing light for the next station plus (preferably) using a different colour light to show the route already travelled!
*) mainline railway train - not LT!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 7, 2019 21:02:20 GMT
On a more general point, is there any chance you can add gaps between your paragraphs so that your posts are easier to read? Don't worry Colin (and other members who have taken the time to PM the admin team today), the posting ability of this member is currently being reviewed.. The thread will remain open for those who wish to engage in reasonable debate, personally I'm fascinated about this "lightning" used in the interiors.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 7, 2019 22:09:24 GMT
Re 'stone age' passenger information; just remember that it was state of the art for rolling stock when specified and agreed about 2006-2007. Given the technology used I think it's pretty good even now. Maybe a brand new system will be a half-life refurb possibility... Probably just as well not to have used available computer screen technologies from 2006. All those CCFL backlights would be failing now and there would be an outcry about the energy such units were eating up.
I think it's been mentioned in a thread here before that there was a really quite clear 'all S7 routes' line diagram drawn up that would address the point about looking at the C&H one when you need to look at the District one or vice-versa. Perhaps the current LUL Customer Experience folk could have another think about those.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 7, 2019 22:38:48 GMT
Re 'stone age' passenger information; just remember that it was state of the art for rolling stock when specified and agreed about 2006-2007. Given the technology used I think it's pretty good even now. Maybe a brand new system will be a half-life refurb possibility... Probably just as well not to have used available computer screen technologies from 2006. All those CCFL backlights would be failing now and there would be an outcry about the energy such units were eating up. I think it's been mentioned in a thread here before that there was a really quite clear 'all S7 routes' line diagram drawn up that would address the point about looking at the C&H one when you need to look at the District one or vice-versa. Perhaps the current LUL Customer Experience folk could have another think about those. I recall seeing maps with LED lights at the stations 'many years ago'. I need to find my photo master images but think it was around the timeframe you quoted. Yes, we agreed that the 'all S7 line map' would be optimal. Hopefully half life refurbishment will include modernising.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 8, 2019 4:15:37 GMT
The first S stock is approaching 10 years service, and must be due for its first overhaul soon!
|
|
|
Post by littlejohn on Oct 8, 2019 8:03:48 GMT
The first S stock is approaching 10 years service, and must be due for its first overhaul soon! Really? It seems like only yesterday.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 8, 2019 10:00:09 GMT
According to the threads on this forum, the first production S8 entered service on 31 July 2010 and the last S7 entered service on 7 October 2016.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Oct 8, 2019 10:27:37 GMT
It wasn’t until earlier this year that all S stock were actually present on the network at once though!
|
|
|
Post by tom73 on Oct 9, 2019 14:10:56 GMT
Passenger comfort. S Stock - a smooth groove A60 - shake rattle and roll. Who cares what it looks like. It's a train not a work of art.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 9, 2019 20:26:17 GMT
Re 'stone age' passenger information; just remember that it was state of the art for rolling stock when specified and agreed about 2006-2007. Given the technology used I think it's pretty good even now. Maybe a brand new system will be a half-life refurb possibility... Probably just as well not to have used available computer screen technologies from 2006. All those CCFL backlights would be failing now and there would be an outcry about the energy such units were eating up. I think it's been mentioned in a thread here before that there was a really quite clear 'all S7 routes' line diagram drawn up that would address the point about looking at the C&H one when you need to look at the District one or vice-versa. Perhaps the current LUL Customer Experience folk could have another think about those. I recall seeing maps with LED lights at the stations 'many years ago'. I need to find my photo master images but think it was around the timeframe you quoted. I've now searched through my photographic collection (library?) and can confirm that the photo I referred to in my previous message was taken on 28th February 2005. Which means that it was before the S Stock trains were specced-out. Of course technology has moved on since then and full colour LCD display versions are now available too. For the benefit of readers who do do not understand what I am talking about, I am adding this explanation plus the images below ...... At present the S7 trains have two route maps - 1) District 2) Hammersmith & City and Circle. Especially visitors to London do not realise this and often look at the wrong map and then wonder why the train has gone somewhere not shown! Imagine a single route map showing all three lines which also used illuminated dots next to each station to show where the train was going in a clear and unambiguous way that all visitors to London (including the many visitors from overseas who have difficulty understanding spoken English announcements and our 'western-nation' alphabet) would find easy to follow.Below are two examples of the type of passenger information that S7 trains need. Dublin - in 2005. An alternative version from a city with a larger route network (trams actually but that is irrelevant here) - this image dates from 4th July 2005. The location is Kassal, Germany. Finally, although not a diagrammatic map this shows a display that is far more informative than the scrolling text displays on S stock trains (and for that matter, Class 378 Overgrounds) This was filmed in May 1993. If Montreal could do it, why not London? There are many other cities which offer proper real-time electronic information that even now is only even *nearly* equalled (here in London) on the Classes 345 and 710 trains (none at all on the London Underground). The only examples of this which I have filmed myself are from Paris and Hong Kong, but I think the above three are sufficient to demonstrate what the S7 stock (and Class 378 overground trains) really should have had from the day they were introduced. The technology existed and was used overseas - why should London's passengers be fobbed off with what is not even 'second' best? It makes me so sad to see how a transport system that for many years was seen as No.1 amongst our family of nations (ie: London Transport) has now become so behind the times that even less-well known cities such as Dublin and Kassal offer more advanced passenger information to their passengers.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 9, 2019 21:11:52 GMT
I do agree that the combined District, Circle, H&C line diagram should be tried in S7 trains. Looking at those other examples, LUL has often considered the lit line diagram style which is quite complex behind the visible rows of LEDs. Today you'd do that on a display screen like Crossrail trains etc. That older style was seen as tricky by LUL because it would for ever need stickers on it as interchanges got changes etc. Even our present line diagrams get stickered between renewals. And of course major mod to the unit if there was ever a new station... Like Wood Lane a few years before S stock, but admittedly very rare. That Montreal screen doesn't seem to me to provide significantly better journey information than S stock CIS. LUL's requirements at the time were quite clear that journey information must not be on the same screens as advertising or other information such as the weather forecast.
|
|