|
|
Post by max on Jun 26, 2008 6:58:27 GMT
Need to do what the mainline railways and the continentals do, and have the seat cusions define individual seats. Armrests would also make it clear how the seats should be divided up. 2+1 seats even on tube stock could be slightly wider than before, to cater for today's wider people, and still allow a wheelchair route. 2+2 on surface stock ditto. Have a mixture of seating types, give people a choice.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 26, 2008 12:34:20 GMT
There is a picture Ive seen of the prototype refurb A60 which has seats like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2008 15:23:13 GMT
I always thought a branch to romford would be a good idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Jun 26, 2008 16:48:00 GMT
The line South of Newbury Park originally went to Ilford.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Jun 27, 2008 0:07:47 GMT
I do think people are reluctant to sit in those seats because of space. Often at the back of the bus people don't sit there because it's difficult to get to the doors. To give you an example: I once fell on top of someone when getting out of the longitudinal seating on the D Stock! Another problem is that the seats are too narrow, meaning that those on the edge stick their legs out and thus there is less standing room, i've seen this happen on the 67TS. A final problem is head space, with the thicker walls on modern Tube stock there is less space to sit up straight if by the walls, this is mostly a problem on tube trains with the body profile of the 95/96TS though.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jun 27, 2008 15:53:08 GMT
On the lateral versus transverse seating argument it is a regular occurrence in the morning peak to see eastbound Met trains leave passengers unable to board at Kings Cross despite empty seats being available.
Back to the original topic, it would need a substantial development at some point along the route to justify reinstatement. I heard about proposals for a new town on the North Weald airfield site some time ago but don't know if the proposal died the death or if developers will be interested when the housing market picks up.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 27, 2008 18:24:20 GMT
But were there actually fewer people on the trains than, say, equivalent C stock. Did you count the passengers on/off, or are you just guessing. Would 2+2 seating have the same problem, or 2+1.
Really, anecdotal observations like this add nothing at all, which is why I am after facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Jun 27, 2008 22:35:06 GMT
How is what you've said not anecdotal? As a regular commuter on the Metropolitan line my opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielfigfoz on Jun 28, 2008 18:38:02 GMT
Chelmsford is quite far off, Harlow is nearer but nither of them are as far as being suposed (im looking at google maps).
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 29, 2008 8:36:15 GMT
Thats a thought. When the airfield is developed make the developers pay for the line to be reinstated between Epping and NW.
|
|
