prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 1, 2009 18:31:22 GMT
Prjb, I'd love to see the research about the seating layout and the 2+2 quagmire. I'm not looking for a fight, and I appreciate this must be something extremely exascerbating for you both personally and professionally! I just dont understand how NR can still in new builds find 2+2 acceptable, whereas LUL can't. I know loading gauges are different, but the tube has mitigated that thus far by building shorter instead of narrower. Having said that, I'm sure that if you had a pound for everytime somebody said "Well if I had my way I'ld do it like this..." you'd probably have earned more than a years salary My email is on my user page I will have a dig around in my archive and see what I can find. If memory serves me the problems were around useability of the interior on a mass transit train with all transverse 2+2 seating. I remember thinking at the time that it was worth researching but ultimately was a wasted exercise. It is worth noting that Network Rail do not move anything like the numbers of customers that we do on a daily basis. I am getting feedback from the operational railway on a daily basis offering me great ideas and suggestions, despite the fact that we have two trains built and the third in construction. To be honest it is always the way in projects, at the start you want lots of input and nobody is interested but at the end of the project when it is too late to change anything everyone has an interest and has differing ideas from the solution chosen! Incidentally, apologies to everyone if my previous posts seemed a bit ' grumpy', I had been in Derby on train 1 until gone eight o'clock in the evening and then travelled back to London.
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by DWS on May 1, 2009 21:24:27 GMT
When the designs were considered for the replacement of the "T" Stock after the Second World War , two experimental saloon type bodies were built at Acton Works using underframes of two withdrawn "T" Stock cars.
Both cars had different types of seat layouts, this could have been done with the A stock, when it was withdrawn from the East London Line.
One four car unit could have been fitted with expermental seat layouts and been run in passenger service with a unmodified 4 car unit.
Still its all water under the Met Line bridges and the Customers will just have to get used to what is provided.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 2, 2009 8:08:11 GMT
To be honest, modifying an existing 'A' Stock would have been extremely expensive and would not have given us any additional data over modern computer modelling. By modelling 2+2 seating it quickly became clear that it wasn't a viable option. I think the majority of our customers will quickly get used to 'S' Stock and will soon come to realise the massive benefits that they offer over the outgoing 'A' Stock. Change, and change on such a massive scale, is never an easy process for anyone (staff and customers alike).
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,095
|
Post by Tom on May 2, 2009 10:22:04 GMT
No, not really. Lots of trains on LU have cut out facilities for doors that are outside of the useable platform area. Yes, I'm well aware that there are stations that require end or front door cut outs to be used. However, in terms of S Stock the majority of the stations are too small for the trains as opposed to a small number of individual stations!
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 2, 2009 13:36:29 GMT
Yes, I'm well aware that there are stations that require end or front door cut outs to be used. However, in terms of S Stock the majority of the stations are too small for the trains as opposed to a small number of individual stations! Again, no not really. About 30% of the Sub-Surface platforms are affected in varying degrees of severity so that is hardly the majority. Most platforms will be fine with minor modifications to end barriers or other platform furniture. We could of course have made the trains smaller and/or shorter but that would not have helped us in the future as passenger numbers begin to grow (especially after the current economic slump). In addition, there will be some platform extensions and not forgetting that the 'S' Stock will be fitted with selective door opening, customer announcements (audible and visual) directed at the specific doorways affected, 'not in use' indicators above the affected doors, gangways to assist with through movement, and some in car information signage. There will also need to be a degree of customer education too. All these things go some way in supporting the decision to continue with the current stock lengths. The system is being used to an extent that our Victorian predecessors could not have ever envisaged in their wildest fantasies and as such we need to look at solutions that take account of that. These solutions also need to be economically viable and to spend millions upon millions extending platforms would not pass the test, not when there are cheaper solutions to be found in technological advances. So we look to other ways of accommodating future passenger numbers without spending millions of your tax paying pounds, extending the stock combined with the features mentioned above are some of those. I find it amazing that, at a time when we are in an economic meltdown, TfL spends billions on upgrading the railway (make no mistake - this type of investment will never happen again on this scale... ever) and people still find ways to criticise the few compromises that we have had to make in order to be economic and efficient. If we had of been remiss enough to ' gold plate' everything we would have got attacked for doing that. Damned if you do...
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
Member is Online
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 2, 2009 18:30:13 GMT
I've been doing a liitle bit of digging into the Liverpool Overhead Railway of late <snip>I'm now not quite so convinced about the perils and henious timekeeping evils of compartment doors and dwell times as is repeated about T stock. Bear in mind too that the LOR ran 30 tph. I take it this was before the conversion to sliding doors?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on May 2, 2009 18:56:41 GMT
I've been doing a liitle bit of digging into the Liverpool Overhead Railway of late <snip>I'm now not quite so convinced about the perils and henious timekeeping evils of compartment doors and dwell times as is repeated about T stock. Bear in mind too that the LOR ran 30 tph. I take it this was before the conversion to sliding doors? Yes; these figures are from the '20s - but I can't currently find the technical reference. I'm pretty sure it was to do with calculating the signal spacings for the long range colour lights.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
Member is Online
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 4, 2009 0:55:09 GMT
Judging by the footage I've seen of the Overhead, having the doors closed wasn't so important!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on May 4, 2009 9:08:08 GMT
The same was true of the Met and District's sliding door stock...
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on May 4, 2009 10:38:37 GMT
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on May 4, 2009 22:12:03 GMT
That's a nice picture - where is it? (I've got a couple of thoughts, but the pole route is confusing me)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on May 4, 2009 22:58:49 GMT
I could be East Putney? The H stock often ran on the Wimbledon branch.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on May 5, 2009 16:28:05 GMT
- where is it? (I've got a couple of thoughts, but the pole route is confusing me) Caption doesn't say (acknowledgement is to J. Graeme Bruce from "Steam to Silver" 2nd edition).
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 5, 2009 16:47:48 GMT
I could be East Putney? The H stock often ran on the Wimbledon branch. It is East Putney, the EB canopy was only rebuilt a few years ago.
|
|