prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 2, 2006 19:32:40 GMT
I'm not ignoring you, I just thought I should leave you all alone to have a darn good debate without my intrusion! Just so you know, other than myself , all your comments (staff or customers) will be noted by our Comms person for inclusion in any feedback to relevant third parties. Which is another good reason for me not to steer any of you in one direction or another. When you have finished ripping us to shreds (just kidding! ) I will try to answer as many of your questions or comments as I can. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jun 2, 2006 19:47:30 GMT
If someone from "up high" will be noting feedback - I might as well add my voice to the "handrail issue". Particularly if this stock is for the Circle, with the short journeys / high loadings / most people standing "culture" on that line.
Like the glass panels - if as someone said they're strong enough. Give an "airy" feel throughout the train, and combined with the articulation as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2006 21:06:24 GMT
and combined with the articulation as well. Articulation is the wrong word. Continuous corridors or continuous gangways would be a better description. An articulation is when two adjacent car ends share the same bogie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2006 17:43:09 GMT
I am curious as to the braking arrangements for the new SSL stock. Will they have tread brakes or disk brakes? I think disks would be better as they are more efficient than tread blocks. Beside that tread braking took a step backward when only one block per wheel was used on stocks like the 'D'. Don't disk brakes exacerbate the infamous "leaves on the line" problem?
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by towerman on Jun 3, 2006 19:38:08 GMT
Don't think you'll see disc brakes,72Mk1 car 3330 was fitted with them in the late 80's early 90's as a trial,they were awkward to get to and very unpopular with the maintenance staff.Big sighs of relief went round at Golders Green when it was reverted to normal tread blocks.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 3, 2006 19:57:45 GMT
all your comments (staff or customers) will be noted by our Comms person for inclusion in any feedback to relevant third parties. Just to ellaborate a bit on my comment. I don't mean that LU are spying on you, I just mean that either me or our comms person will collate your views and try to use them in a positive way to influence the projects direction. It's a chance for everyone (not just staff now) to make a contribution. There is a wealth of knowledge here and we would be mad not to listen to what you are saying. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by donnytom on Jun 4, 2006 12:11:39 GMT
There's another thread about how no-one seems to be sure what to do with the D-stock refurb prototype. Perhaps barney's idea would be a suitable solution?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Jun 4, 2006 23:01:48 GMT
There was also mention of blocks helping during leaf fall - ie by helping keep the wheels clean. Also, blocks can help keep the wheels a little drier when it rains, thus helping traction when motoring away from a stand.
By using disks, these advantages would be lost.
EDIT: actually, why not have both? This way the braking system could be much more superior in operation - with less time between maintenance as both systems working together would take longer to 'life expire'. Of course train maintainers would have extra work though....
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Jun 4, 2006 23:41:31 GMT
"LU - Spying" (prjb #68)
Spying,snooping or what - it's good to see that ' comments from the 'Public' are being noticed !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2006 3:19:06 GMT
I think the design should be like the older tube stocks, with transverse seats in the centre and longitudinal on the outer ends of the cars. It gives a more even look IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by william on Jun 5, 2006 7:36:06 GMT
I think the design should be like the older tube stocks, with transverse seats in the centre and longitudinal on the outer ends of the cars. It gives a more even look IMHO. The reasons for not having transverse seats in modern stock and refurbs is because they restrict passenger movement and standing room when the train is moving through the zone 1 area, other than that they are a good thing as it gives seated passengers a choice. However one has doubt any decision made would be based on giving the interior a more even look.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by towerman on Jun 5, 2006 19:53:35 GMT
I take it in times of stock shortage they're not going to do what they used to do on the District,Bakerloo and Northern and run 6 for 7,6 for 8 or 7 for 8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 1:05:16 GMT
What about comfort?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,410
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 6, 2006 11:19:32 GMT
Comfort is something that will probably be tricky. On current stocks the A stock seating is designed for comfort on longer distance journeys at the expense of freedom of movement and quick stops in the city. In comparison the C stock is configured soley for ease of getting large numbers of pax on an off quickly to suit the needs of the Circle line. If there is only going to be one internal layout then, imho, they should probably go for a compromise layout similar to that used on the D stock currently. Otherwise they should retain the three layouts as at present. Unless someone can invent a system that allows quick and easy reconfiguring of layouts without the need to detrain the pax. Alternately have two layouts per train - e.g. on the District have long-distance layouts in the end cars and cattle class in the middle.
The advantages of three-internal layouts for passengers are obviously comfort as above, but also extra branding - maroon poles for the Met for example. However as the stock should be able to run anywhere on the sub-surface lines this would reduce operation flexability if the intention is to have just one common pool of trains.
Which leads me to a question - will there be just one pool of trains with each of the lines allocated a certain number of units, but not specific ones? Or will there be allocations of specific units to specific lines? If the latter then the three layouts would be conceiably more doable. Especially if it were possible to rearange the layouts with just a little work - plug and play style fittings, just unlock the fittings, spin them around and lock them back into place. Perhaps swapping the seat covers for ones with a different moquette. and polls for ones of a different colour. If it was all to hand in the depot, perhaps two people could transform 1 carriage in 30 minutes or so. The plug and play nature of the fittings could also reduce the length of time a unit is out of service for vandalism - if the seat gets damaged, take it out and replace it with a new one and fix the old one while the train is back out earning its keep.
Another thought about layouts in this rather rambling post is a compromise layout that I've not seen anywhere - have transverse seating on one side of the carriage and longitudinal along the other. It would give a wider aisle and more standing space but also the preferred transverse seating.
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Jun 6, 2006 11:34:07 GMT
Alternately have two layouts per train - e.g. on the District have long-distance layouts in the end cars and cattle class in the middle. I think that you have just re-invented first class travel.
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Jun 6, 2006 13:53:03 GMT
The plans of the possible layout do show a mix of traverse and longitude seating.
As the S stock for the Met will be the equivalent of an 8 car train and for the Circle/H&C/District the equivalent of a 7 car train the Met stock can be designed towards that specific line a little more and the same goes for the 7 car.
The design of the interiors of some of the mainline stock can be used as an idea towards the S stock. For example the Desiros on SWT they have individual traverse seating which are in pairs, are quite comfortable, space saving and high enough to give a little privacy. This idea could be used but with the proposed mixture of longitude seating opposite.
Regarding line colours. The S stock for the met could be designed with the maroon in mind being longer trains and would possibly only run on the met. The other S stock could have a neutral design with larger line diagrams highlighting the line colour.
I can see the plus side to having all the stock built and designed the same but this doesn’t rule out certain units being designated to its home line thus the interior can be designed solely for that line. This wouldn’t affect maintenance or unit availability as there are to be more units than today’s numbers and they are supposed to require less maintenance plus having the same on board equipment.
Anyway remember we had the 38's 56's 59's and 72's run on various lines through out their lives which were handy for flexibility and we all coped as long as the maps were correct. Then we had more modern stock's i.e. 96's which were designed solely for a line.
So I think the fundamental issues on all the stock is that they are comfortable, have a good seating balance, wider doors, better lighting than today’s vile fluorescent tubes stuck in your face, are vandal resistant, good interior design unlike some of the recent stocks which cost millions but look cheap and badly designed as something from a flat pack, are reliable and can move at a good speed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 17:10:28 GMT
Which leads me to a question - will there be just one pool of trains with each of the lines allocated a certain number of units, but not specific ones? Or will there be allocations of specific units to specific lines? If there are going to be different numbers of cars on different lines and they're all walk-through, then presumably each unit will be fixed as 6,7 or 8 cars - I can't see how you can have walk-through connections that can be easily uncoupled. But if the units are identical from a driver's point of view then there is still an advantage in that if it all goes tits up a District driver could move a Metropolitan train (although only on road he's trained on). If the new trains have the facility to lock out the doors on whole cars then maybe an 8 car train could still operate in 7 car platforms? As long as the fittings aren't so easy to remove that the chavs can do it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 21:43:59 GMT
Well, if a mere passenger customer is allowed to say anything.... If the seats are going to be "plug and play" why not have enough plugs to allow for either transverse or longitudinal and let the depots sort out what meets their needs? And, while I'm being creative - a suggestion that could equally well apply to all lines - some form of information either on trains or stations or both as to whereabouts on the platform the exit is at each station. Commuters get to know this of course, but tourists don't...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 22:37:01 GMT
And, while I'm being creative - a suggestion that could equally well apply to all lines - some form of information either on trains or stations or both as to whereabouts on the platform the exit is at each station. Commuters get to know this of course, but tourists don't... But the commuters don't want slow-moving tourists in front of them!
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Jun 6, 2006 22:40:40 GMT
The Met will still get 8 equivalent cars were as the District is now to get 7 instead of todays 6 and the Circle and H&C will also get 7 instead of todays 6. Also the S stock cars wil be slightly longer.
The walk through system doesnt make any difference as they will still be cars that are able to be coupled/un. In other words open ended of todays carriages. Though i think the tendancy of keeping them coupled would be preferred unless they have to be removed for serious maintenance.
Platform engineering work looks like it'll take place at Baker st, notting hill, bayswater, paddington and edgware rd to accomadate the longer trains.
Anyway with the 8 and 7 car going on it's still poss to have met S stock with maroon id and the remainder a green yellow pink as in the seating of the C stock, which runs on all three lines today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 22:43:10 GMT
Given the increasing overcrowding on the tube, the train layout has to allow for more standees, and better passenger flow. Giving everyone a nice comfortable seat is not an option! And, while I'm being creative - a suggestion that could equally well apply to all lines - some form of information either on trains or stations or both as to whereabouts on the platform the exit is at each station. Commuters get to know this of course, but tourists don't... It would not be a good idea! If everyone knew where to get off the train to be nearest the exit, then some parts of the train would be seriously overcrowded, whilst others parts are empty. Also the platform may end up being more overcrowded as all passengers would be leaving near the same spot, and dwell times would be increased for the same reasons. However, there is no harm in telling the passengers on which side the next platform is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2006 1:48:14 GMT
OK, it seems that I'm wrong. But the idea of plug and play is good. By the way, what kinds of doors are being used on the S Stock (Plug-type, pocket sliding or externally-hung sliding)?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 7, 2006 19:55:08 GMT
Ok, GULP!! With regards to the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) compliant area: The back board is of solid construction lower down and toughened glass further up. The glass will be strong enough to withstand a substantial impact without breaking. The cross rail is high enough not to allow vandals to sit on it or for standing customers to topple over the top. The colour contrasts (RVAR again) used in the materials will alow the visually impaired to see it. LU have moved away from using D type handles or bars as these do not meet RVAR as people can get their hands/wrists caught and are difficult for those with hand disabilities to hold. The flooring will be consistent with current modern stocks and will not be slippery. 'S' Stock will not have any luggage racks such as on the A60's. Firstly they are not well used and secondly people tend to forget their luggage after they have placed it there. Part of the problem is that people place their used Metro's up there, so that other customers cannot then see their items through the grills. With the under seat areas any luggage left there will be instantly noticeable (great for security - the BTP have said they like this) and customers tend to maintain tactile contact with their items which reminds them not to leave them behind! Now then, horizontal grab rails! My boss is well over 6' and initially did not see the need for them. The rest of the team discussed this with him and he took on board our concerns (being a C&H man I pointed out their high usage on 'C'). The team then went to visit South East Trains to have a look at their 376's (I think?) and they had to have horizontal grab poles retro-fitted by Bombardier. Finally, our comms guy pointed out the comments made here, which was the decider in my opinion. I was at a meeting this morning and the horizontal grab rails have been put on the agenda, there will be a series of computer based studies to see if they are required. We all know what the outcome will be! Natural Ventilation. There will not be any ventilation slats like the ones on 'C' stock. The 'S' stock is going to be fully air conditioned and will not require this feature. In fact tthey would interfere with the air con and on a through train would really cause more problems then they are worth. If you think about the ones fitted to 'C' Stock, they are wholly ineffectual and are really only there for show rather than as a true source of natural ventilation. On the subject of utilising the 'D' pre-refurb as a test bed. This would be very costly and would not be a true representation of 'S' Stock. You are going to see an unprecedented level of Customer Acceptance Testing on this stock. There will even be a full size mock up in the future for everyone to clamber over and give their views. Most features on 'S' whilst new to LU are proven products in their own right on other Metro systems around the world. Love them or hate them, Bombardier build lots of trains and have a great deal of expertise and experience behind them. Seating will be comfortable, the images posted are early design and are not representative of the final product. LU have made it very clear that whilst we expect a modern 'world class' product, we also guard our heritage jealously. Seating is part of that heritage, we do not do steal, we do not do plastic, we do not do airline style, we do not do thin NR types either. Yes we have messed up in the past (92ts springs to mind) but not this time, we expect the seats on 'S' to be deep, comfortable, moquette covered and in line with what our customers expect to see on an London Underground train service. We mean it this time, we won't accept anything less. I have even suggested a trip to the Museum at Acton to show Bombardier where we have evolved from. We are not NR, we are LU (formerly LT, LTE, LPTB) we are a Metro system that even have our own copyrighted font and we will not have the pioneers who built our system turning in their graves anymore. I will get off my soap box now, sorry if I over did that but it's close to my heart (did you guess?)! 8 cars will be dedicated Met, and 7 interchangeable between the District and C&H lines. We are currently working towards a common internal livery but nothing has been finalised. Plug and Play does sound like a good idea but the acceleration and braking performance as well as loading tolerances are calculated on a set design. If we remove seats to increase standing or put more in and reduce standing this will have an adverse effect on the acceleration/deceleration and loading constraints. The signalling system will be calculated on these factors too, so plug and play is not really a viable option, good idea though. These trains will be two units (4+4, 3+4) and will be semi-permanently coupled in the middle. We do not anticipate uncoupling them regularly, but it is possible. The inter-car bellows are removable. Doors are wider than today in order to reduce station dwell times, it will also be possibe for standing customers to utilise the inter-car areas. Thank you for all your comments so far, they are proving really useful.
|
|
|
Post by donnytom on Jun 7, 2006 21:00:52 GMT
Is a full-size mock-up just a car without all the kit that passengers never see anyway?
Is anything being done to ensure that the stock air-con doesn't heat the tunnels and stations, or is this not seen to be a problem?
(and thanks to pjrb for keeping the probable users of this stock up-to-date with events)
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 7, 2006 21:20:01 GMT
Is a full-size mock-up just a car without all the kit that passengers never see anyway? Is anything being done to ensure that the stock air-con doesn't heat the tunnels and stations, or is this not seen to be a problem? (and thanks to pjrb for keeping the probable users of this stock up-to-date with events) Yea, a mock up is a car/part of a car fully fitted out inside and represents the proposed final product. Customers are then invited to view the vehicle and make comment. Tunnel temperatures are not seen to be an issue on the Sub-Surface network as we are not deep level tube.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,410
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 7, 2006 21:30:47 GMT
Is there a way of opening windows or some other ventilation backup in the event of an air conditioning failure or if the train is off the juice for an extended period (as I presume this is what will provide the power for the air con)?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 7, 2006 21:50:32 GMT
The air con has dual redundancy and as the train is walk through other units can compensate in a single failure scenario (not likely with dual redundancy though). Management of trains coming into service from depots will be key, so we do not anticipate trains immediately entering service after being off juice. There is also a back up vent system which will provide fresh air in an emergency situation where the juice is switched off.
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Jun 7, 2006 23:26:46 GMT
Thank you pjrb and it's much appreciated the effort your putting into this. It's great to know there are people out there who still have common sense and find it important to support the historical values which many of us have.
I've always been passionate in regards to Lu's history and origin and firmly believe that makes it unique.
Looking forward to the progression of this project and seeing the mock up!
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Jun 7, 2006 23:36:51 GMT
Oh one more thing i'm wondering.
As we all know parts of the track has been for a long time a bit rocky in some areas. I'm aware at the moment there is track re placement in hand but one thing concerns me.
Will all the track on the sub surface lines be suitable for the S stock giving they have walk through inter car areas simliar to the DLR. I'm more concerned about the rocking sway and track height variations that often occur all over the system today. Will the walk through areas be able to with stand this if the track still isn't up to scratch and how would it be for the poor passenger standing between cars..?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Jun 7, 2006 23:43:38 GMT
I was told by a Pway guy some time ago that the aim is to have the track standard improved by the time S stock is introduced. The Pway bods are aware that S stock is likely to be 'more sensitive'.
|
|