Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2008 22:13:53 GMT
Ibus is great.....when it works properly! I have heard some announcements that are well out of sync....and I agree entirely with Colin about the Met being dragged into the 2000's. As for seating, a lot of the Met trains north of Harrow are almost empty off peak! As for the north end, the Chiltern 165 units can help out a bit!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 20, 2008 22:29:08 GMT
Ibus is great.....when it works properly! I have heard some announcements that are well out of sync.... I've been on one service where the announcements were going in the opposite direction to the bus! and I agree entirely with Colin about the Met being dragged into the 2000's. As for seating, a lot of the Met trains north of Harrow are almost empty off peak! Compare this to the eastbound Central Line train I caught at ~11pm from Oxford Circus last night. It was basically crush loaded as far as Stratford, with standing room only until Leytonstone. The carriage I was in was just a little under half full when I left at Debden. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jul 21, 2008 20:49:10 GMT
I think that iBus could be better, but it can be useful - if the Citaro G (bendy bus) you're on is so crowded that you can't see out the window!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 21, 2008 21:12:20 GMT
Ibus is great.....when it works properly! I have heard some announcements that are well out of sync.... I've been on one service where the announcements were going in the opposite direction to the bus! And today iBus on the number 20 was one stop behind the bus. The section between Loughton High Road and Loughton station, which is served in the same order on both Debden-bound and Walthamstow-bound services, regularly confuses it. On the whole though I much prefer it to trying to work out where I am when I don't know an area. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 21, 2008 22:58:50 GMT
You say the S stock is a generic fleet, but the Met trains will be 8 cars and the rest will be 7 cars, so why not go the whole hog and put in 2+2 seating- to be honest I think it is just some members of the combine being bloody minded! Because we looked at it in a lot of detail and it just did not work, 'A' Stock are the widest stock in the country and 'S' Stock cannot match it for width. We presented our findings to the relevant user groups on the north of the Met too and whilst they weren't happy they accepted our point when the saw the design. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jul 21, 2008 23:04:18 GMT
Paul, I'm at the north end of the Met and I'd love to see the findings. My fault for being on the wrong branch, eh! If youve got anything emailable my address is on my profile page, and I'd really appreciate it  |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 21, 2008 23:34:44 GMT
Newer seats doesn't mean they will be better. It does if you hate 50 year old over sprung seats, and it does when combined with air suspension, air conditioning and all the other modern benefits that 'S' Stock will bring. You could say those things about a modern double deck bus - something like an Enviro 400 - but that doesn't mean it is better than a Routemaster, and passengers would prefer it to one. I can't comment too much on bus design as I work on the railway and have no experience in this area. What I will say is this, if bus design is that bad then I would imagine that there is very little interaction between the bus designers, the bus operators who order them, and the bus drivers who operate them day in - day out. 'S' Stock has had all of the correct consultation and then some. As for Routemaster's I think you may be hung up on heritage rather than design for use. I hated the things to be honest, due to the open back they were cold in the winter and dangerous if you had kids. The stairs were hard to tackle at the best of times and if you had kids or shopping, or both, then you had better stay downstairs. I also found them to be noisy, jerky, and generally uncomfortable. So from my point of view as a user I prefer more modern versions of the London bus. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2008 0:03:30 GMT
That comes across as classic modern "transport professional" speak, the same as those TFL "experts" who are so proud of their modern plastic low-floor, reduced-seating, sweatbox d/d's or bendy buses, with minimal external route details but internal non-stop nagging recorded announcements. Ditto the S Stock, where rather than upgrade all of SSL to Met Line A Stock level (or rather more sensibly offer a bespoke Met version), it's better to dumb the whole lot down to short-hop Circle Line standards. Little wonder the rail (and bus) industry has such a poor reputation in the public eye. I am a modern transport professional and TfL 'expert' actually, and I am also quite proud of the 'S' Stock design too. I am considered an expert by the fact that I joined the company at 18 and have held various posts in my short 19 years service including Guard, Driver, Signalman, Duty Manager (Trains), and projects. I can also tell you that the vast majority of people I am working alongside, both within LU and Metronet, are also so called experts who have a huge amount of experience in the rail industry and in particular LU. I am not sure what your problem with us is exactly, but I bet we know a lot more about our railway than you ever will both from an operational and customer perspective. As I have stated elsewhere, I can't really comment on bus design (not that I'm sure what it's relevance is in this thread anyway) but what I will say is that this train has been designed and is being built to meet the needs of all end users and not just a select few. That said though, the Met has been given it's own seating layout when compared to the rest of the new SSR fleet. As for your comment about dumbing down to Circle line standards (which I find quite derogatory btw) you should be so lucky. The Circle line does an amazing job every single day of moving Londoners around in huge numbers, it does it quickly as well as efficiently in the face of unique operating conditions and the 'C' Stock are the workhorse of the SSR fleet (like them or not). I also find it funny that you feel the rail industry has a bad reputation in the public eye, because the vast majority of LU customers give us good feedback. We are also moving nearly 4 million people a day which is more than we have ever moved before, so the feedback we get is more relevant now than it has ever been. In addition our operational staff have a better standing with the traveling public than they have ever had before, mainly because the way they deal with our customers day in and day out but also because of the way in which they are dealt with when things do occasionally go wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jul 23, 2008 17:26:48 GMT
Newer seats doesn't mean they will be better. It does if you hate 50 year old over sprung seats, and it does when combined with air suspension, air conditioning and all the other modern benefits that 'S' Stock will bring. But I don't hate '50 year old over sprung seats'. What has air conditioning got to do with seating? You could say those things about a modern double deck bus - something like an Enviro 400 - but that doesn't mean it is better than a Routemaster, and passengers would prefer it to one. I can't comment too much on bus design as I work on the railway and have no experience in this area. What I will say is this, if bus design is that bad then I would imagine that there is very little interaction between the bus designers, the bus operators who order them, and the bus drivers who operate them day in - day out. 'S' Stock has had all of the correct consultation and then some. Maybe there is little interaction - modern buses aren't designed for one company. As for Routemaster's I think you may be hung up on heritage rather than design for use. I hated the things to be honest, due to the open back they were cold in the winter and dangerous if you had kids. The stairs were hard to tackle at the best of times and if you had kids or shopping, or both, then you had better stay downstairs. I also found them to be noisy, jerky, and generally uncomfortable. So from my point of view as a user I prefer more modern versions of the London bus. But a lot of people in London do want a 'new Routemaster'. Actually, I don't, I would prefer 3 axle modern double decks or bendy buses (only on routes where they are better than double decks - like the 507 and 521). Anyway, it is not just to do with heritage. Some people prefer the shape of Routemasters to the modern buses that they call 'square boxes', and companies liked them because they are more reliable, because of the engine being in the front, and also, they are less likely to get dents in the roof. Some modern buses can be noisy, jerky and uncomfortable. For example, in watford, there are some 10 year old Dart SLF/Pointer single deckers that Arriva run. The panels in them vibrate a lot when the bus hits a bump, and I was on one once (I think it was 3183) that had something wrong with it - the engine was shaking the whole bus whenever it stopped. As for Routemasters being noisy, some people think that is how a bus should sound. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 24, 2008 18:14:41 GMT
But I don't hate '50 year old over sprung seats'. What has air conditioning got to do with seating? Seating will always be a matter of opinion, but we are designing modern seats for a modern metro and they will be comfortable and durable. If you look at my reply No17 you will see that I was referring to the new train being comfortable, and air conditioning (along with new seats and improved lighting) is an important part of making the new train more comfortable. Maybe there is little interaction - modern buses aren't designed for one company. That is exactly why trying to compare modern buses to the 'S' Stock design doesn't hold water. The 'S' Stock is not a rehashed Electrostar, it has it's own assembly jigs and is a stand alone design. In addition it has had plenty of user acceptance testing and quite a bit of customer acceptance testing too. But a lot of people in London do want a 'new Routemaster'. Actually, I don't, I would prefer 3 axle modern double decks or bendy buses (only on routes where they are better than double decks - like the 507 and 521). Anyway, it is not just to do with heritage. Some people prefer the shape of Routemasters to the modern buses that they call 'square boxes', and companies liked them because they are more reliable, because of the engine being in the front, and also, they are less likely to get dents in the roof. Isn't the fact that people prefer the shape of a Routemaster to a modern bus a heritage issue? It is in my book! Some modern buses can be noisy, jerky and uncomfortable. For example, in watford, there are some 10 year old Dart SLF/Pointer single deckers that Arriva run. The panels in them vibrate a lot when the bus hits a bump, and I was on one once (I think it was 3183) that had something wrong with it - the engine was shaking the whole bus whenever it stopped. As for Routemasters being noisy, some people think that is how a bus should sound. Again, I can't really comment too much on the modern bus Vs older bus debate, but for me I would go for a more modern bus than a Routemaster any day just from my own specific travel needs. I will concede that the Routemaster looked nicer though!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2008 21:21:49 GMT
I (and probably some others) wish the space train was made
it looked really cool and we would have been the first to design something like it
09's just look like even uglier 92 stock
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jul 25, 2008 20:07:18 GMT
I don't think the 09TS looks ugly - it just looks a bit weird. S stock is ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jul 25, 2008 20:16:18 GMT
When D stock was new it was criticised as bland and boring. Within 10 years it had been hailed as a design classic.
suspend all views until S stock is seen for real; the photos don't do it justice.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 25, 2008 20:53:04 GMT
When D stock was new it was criticised as bland and boring. Within 10 years it had been hailed as a design classic. suspend all views until S stock is seen for real; the photos don't do it justice. That is a very good point, well made. It does take a while to appreciate something new - particularly when it is as radical a departure as the 'S' Stock is going to be from current SSR Stock. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,313
|
Post by Colin on Jul 25, 2008 23:25:34 GMT
Whilst I totally agree with the sentiment that judgment really shouldn't be passed until the final product is seen in the flesh - on a forum such as this, saying something is ugly and nothing else just doesn't cut it!
If you cannot give a sound reason for such comments, please don't post them!
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 26, 2008 19:46:33 GMT
When D stock was new it was criticised as bland and boring. Within 10 years it had been hailed as a design classic. suspend all views until S stock is seen for real; the photos don't do it justice. The D Stock *are* bland and boring - "bland silver boxes" as a former Acton Town GD/MM and now Service Control Instructor once described them. Slab-sided and without even a waistrail cant. They've only improved since they were painted and even this of course was totally against the original concept which wouldn't even paint the roofs or apply roundels to the trailer cars... |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jul 26, 2008 20:18:52 GMT
The D Stock *are* bland and boring - "bland silver boxes" as a former Acton Town GD/MM and now Service Control Instructor once described them. Slab-sided and without even a waistrail cant. They've only improved since they were painted and even this of course was totally against the original concept which wouldn't even paint the roofs or apply roundels to the trailer cars... That's a matter of personal opinion - not a matter of fact; we are all entitled to our own views and opinions! |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 26, 2008 21:38:23 GMT
Hmm...well I don't know many hailing the D Stock as a "classic" (reliable, certainly) but it takes all sorts. Certainly the orange/brown seat moquette took on a classic 'retro' look in later years, but that was sacrificed needlessly for an interim pattern prior to refurbishment.
Guess I'll never forgive them for surplanting my CO/CP/R Stocks...
The S Stock side profile seems a bit more stylish than the slab D78 cars but the cab front looks 'plasticy' to me.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 26, 2008 22:13:36 GMT
Of the current sub-surface stocks the D stock is the least attractive of the three, in my opinion (that award goes to the A stock). However, I do like the external look of the S stock in the pictures I've seen. I am reserving final judgment however until I see it in the flesh.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jul 26, 2008 22:43:12 GMT
I seem to recall that when the 1959 Stock came in, the saving on paint cf. the 1938 Stock and the post-war additions was 1/2 cwt per car. When I first saw and sat in a D78 train on display at Tower Hill when brand new I was very impressed. Form against function is always difficult to balance...Oliver Bulleid in my opinion was consistent in his 'function with some form added later' concept. Look at his three electric locos, and the three diesel-electrics. Boxes with some rounding-off in the end of the sharp edges. Given the fact that the D Stock had to be built to a narrower profile than A Stock, and had to carry standees as well as seated passengers, I believe that a good job was done.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,313
|
Post by Colin on Jul 27, 2008 1:02:59 GMT
Given the fact that the D Stock had to be built to a narrower profile than A Stock, and had to carry standees as well as seated passengers, I believe that a good job was done. And that's all that matters really - can it do the job of getting people from A to B.......looks & liveries are a minor secondary issue. The only problem with the D stock is it's single leaf doors - but when it was designed/introduced the passenger levels seen today were never considered likely to happen; that was a shame - after all the same issue caused the 83ts's early demise. |
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Jul 27, 2008 5:52:33 GMT
looks & liveries are a minor secondary issue ...which receives amazingly much attention. |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jul 27, 2008 7:30:18 GMT
The S Stock side profile seems a bit more stylish than the slab D78 cars but the cab front looks 'plasticy' to me. Oh, well, you can't please all the people al the time, but there's very little plastic in the front of an S stock - it's "superformed" aluminium. |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 27, 2008 8:52:50 GMT
To my untrained eye the D-stock always looked odd with it tube sized wheels and body set high above the bogies. As the TFL website says it is for commonality of parts and easier maintenance.
prjb's photo site nicely illustrates the S-stock's monocoque body shell construction. When did monocoque construction first appear LU stock design? I also notice that the under frame on many trains is welded fabrication with some cast components so I presume it is steel and not aluminium? I see that parts of the underframe are marked up with spray paint for NDT testing. Also were the underframes chasis ever rivetted construction?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 27, 2008 9:23:37 GMT
I see that parts of the underframe are marked up with spray paint for NDT testing. What is NDT testing? |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 27, 2008 9:29:30 GMT
NDT - Non Destructive Testing of integrity of welds and areas of steel likely to be highly stressed e.g. ultrasound, magnetic particle inspection methods & dye penetration. Though X-ray would probably be uneconomical in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2008 21:16:18 GMT
FWIW I was with a New Yorker the other day who thought the Circle Line was simply amazing...
|
|
