Externally Chicago's Series 5000 is visually almost identical to the much older 3200 stock it replaces -- that iconic stainless steel, much of it horizontally corrugated, and those chains over the connecting doors.
The new stock has been tidied-up, the light clusters are rather more fetching, and some nifty technology has been shoe-horned in (including dot-matrix destination display indicators).
Inside, there's more passenger information equipment than before, but the design is not a huge advance -- it's a design that's more about vandal-resistant strength and ruggedness than passenger comfort.
It's a design that feels almost willfully retro, harking back to the 1950s.
But from the outside, there's something rather delightful about these cars.
Each car is relatively short (a consequence of the Chicago L's extraordinarily sharp curves), and they're connected together as twin-sets (or, as the Americans would say, "married pairs") -- a number of twin-sets coupled together making up a train.
I love the cars of the Chicago L so I'm actually rather glad the "new" design is so close to the old.
It's a bit like the old London taxi: I wanted them to modernise, but I didn't want to lose a design icon.
The design approach in London is completely different.
Here they've been designed from the inside out -- the 50 year old "A" stock that this is replacing is traditional, but this new "S" stock follows London Overground's "hollow tube" approach...
... where there are full-width connections between every car enabling passengers to move up and down the whole train at will.
The seats are a mixture of longitudinal and lateral -- I can't say I'd welcome a longitudinal seat on some of the longest journeys operated by this stock, but in general the seats look a little more padded than Chicago's.
The external styling is interesting, following the template established for the new Victoria line stock.
But the "S" Stock is bigger, and the face of the trains has a sort of insectivorous look -- two giant compound eyes staring out of a red plane.
I don't think the cab is unattractive, but the design of the car bodies is much less persuasive.
There's something a bit "bung it all on" about the way the doors hang from guttering, and the lazily-angled, gawky planes of the sides (these trains need to fit into the narrow tunnels of the District line).
But they also have one huge, vast advantage over their predecessors -- they're air-conditioned which, in London's fetid tube, is an absolute God-send.
Overall? I'd say Chicago wins the external design prize and London the internal prize.
But how fascinating that two such ostensibly similar cities could specify two designs that are so totally different.
2 comments:
Just my 2 cents. London wins over Chicago easily, especially when commuting daily!
Lighting is more subdued, interior looks more comfy and once in a while you need a change in the appearance of things to arouse interest. Ignoring the video surveyance you could even do a very, very close remake of 'The Taking of Pelham 123' inside the Chicago cars (i know that Pelham 123 features in NY ;-)
That lighting point is a good one -- tube trains and buses (and in fact ordinary trains) have gone from being softly lit with gentle, yellow light to being harshly lit fluorescent monsters. There is always far too much brightness.
Apparently this is for the 0.0001% of the population who need such things. Which means the 0.0001% of us who are light sensitive have to suffer almost pain, while the rest of the population has to put up with a bleakly harsh environment rather than a welcoming, cosseting one.
And the electricity bill must be through the roof...
Post a Comment