prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 24, 2009 21:28:13 GMT
So that was you in frame at 0m47s?  No, that was not me. The person you are referring to was the Person In Charge of the Train. Whoever filmed this managed to completely miss me in every shot they took, which is a blessing for their lens! I did manage to appear on 'London Tonight' for all of about 2 seconds, although this didn't stop my son from being over the moon!! ;D |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197 
|
Post by Tom on Oct 24, 2009 22:15:29 GMT
While the A stock are slower off the mark than a C stock, the A's are always thought to be holding the road up because people think they go to slow. What gets forgotten is that they are longer than a C, so take longer to clear a signalling section and they require a greater breaking distance as they are heavier. You are quite right, they are heavier and they are longer but the net effect is they are actually slower off the mark. A 'C' Stock is decidely rapid compared to an 'A' Stock in terms of pulling away from a stand. A couple of points, if I may? It's a common misconception (perpetuated by some of the LU training) that a heavier train needs a greater distance to stop in. A heavier train has a greater mass and therefore greater brake force - it will in fact stop in a shorter distance. The Train Performance Data used in overlap calculations assumes a train in tare condition with (IIRC) new wheels on full line voltage because of this. Train Performance data for headways, however, uses different load characteristics (the exact value escapes me, but does involve the train having passengers), average sized wheels and a line voltage of 575v. In other words, the train goes slower and brakes harder. It should be noted that the signalling in the city area is designed for 8 car A stock operation, and whilst a C stock appears faster it is in fact exceeding the headway requirements for the area. We now come back to the point I made yesterday; it's horses for courses. While I wouldn't want to ride a C stock from Amersham into the City, A stock isn't really suitable for use south of Baker Street and in some ways an all day Met City service is a retrograde step. S stock, as a 'one size fits all' train, is unable to please all of the users all of the time. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Oct 24, 2009 22:49:44 GMT
It would have been interesting (though totally impractical) if Metroland Man had been given a stark choice of two:
1. 2+2 (or a squeezed 3+2) seating and all southbound Met trains terminate at Baker Street.
2. Reduced seating and through trains (as is coming in with S stock).
I suspect that they would have chosen 2., even though they would have grumbled about it.
could have made a good P.R. exercise though......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2009 23:00:36 GMT
It would have been interesting (though totally impractical) if Metroland Man had been given a stark choice of two: 1. 2+2 (or a squeezed 3+2) seating and all southbound Met trains terminate at Baker Street. 2. Reduced seating and through trains (as is coming in with S stock). I suspect that they would have chosen 2., even though they would have grumbled about it. could have made a good P.R. exercise though......Metroland man grumbles about everything  I was told when I started my training on the Met "Passengers North of Harrow think they own the line. Passengers North of Rickmansworth know they own the line." |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 24, 2009 23:04:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Oct 25, 2009 1:07:59 GMT
I was told when I started my training on the Met "Passengers North of Harrow think they own the line. Passengers North of Rickmansworth know they own the line." And passengers in Uxbridge really know the line. ;D |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 25, 2009 5:50:21 GMT
It would have been interesting (though totally impractical) if Metroland Man had been given a stark choice of two: 1. 2+2 (or a squeezed 3+2) seating and all southbound Met trains terminate at Baker Street. 2. Reduced seating and through trains (as is coming in with S stock). I suspect that they would have chosen 2., even though they would have grumbled about it. could have made a good P.R. exercise though......Or how about: 3. Keep the current trains, current seating layout and through trains. Isn't your P.R. exercise a bit like asking customers if they went (i) more information or (ii) less information? |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Oct 25, 2009 7:57:51 GMT
Isn't your P.R. exercise a bit like asking customers if they went (i) more information or (ii) less information? Exactly - they would all plump for through trains with less seating. The point is THEY would then have felt they had had some say in the result, as opposed to having it inflicted on them as now. As for your 3, for how long do you keep a bit of kit once it's life-expired? The A stock are already 10 years over (in terms of design life)................. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2009 8:06:53 GMT
[/quote]Or how about:
3. Keep the current trains, current seating layout and through trains.
[/quote]
The current configuration doesn't leave much room for pushchairs, bicycles or wheelchairs. Nor is it easy to get between the 3+2 configuration. Lastly, the point of having a S (Standard) stock is that cost of maintenance can be reduced across the four sub-surfice lines as a whole.
While I personally would prefer some 2+2 seating, I am sure that the flow of people on and off the S Stock will be greatly improved by the S Stock seating arrangements which should in turn make journeys quicker as a whole.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 25, 2009 8:43:09 GMT
[quote author=cityboy board=met thread=11960 post=215777 time=1256458013}
The current configuration doesn't leave much room for pushchairs, bicycles or wheelchairs. Nor is it easy to get between the 3+2 configuration. Lastly, the point of having a S (Standard) stock is that cost of maintenance can be reduced across the four sub-surfice lines as a whole.
While I personally would prefer some 2+2 seating, I am sure that the flow of people on and off the S Stock will be greatly improved by the S Stock seating arrangements which should in turn make journeys quicker as a whole. [/quote]
I don't believe the S stock layout will adequately cater for pushchairs etc either, apart from the fact that dedicated areas will be provided.
Whilst longitudinal seating works well on Tube trains because of the cramped layout, it really creates problems when people stretch their legs out or put belongings at their feet.
IMO the class 378 layout is a disaster, because whilst there's a lot of floor space, this does not translate into useable standing space, and furthermore there are no convenient walls in which to stand against or place belongings. The result is you end up with an interior cluttered with people and belongings, which does not make for efficient use of space.
And the layout also doesn't result in quick loading/unloading, because people *STILL* hang around the door areas, but instead of standing tight up against the draught screens either side of the doors, people now just stand in the first place which comes to sight - which is right in the middle of the door opening.
It's very noticeable how you frequently hear passengers commenting on how the 378 is a "swish" train, but "the old trains have more seats". It's also noticeable how people frequently try to open the (sealed) windows -- obviously the air conditioning is not creating a comfortable environment, and this is in autumn.
It's a real missed opportunity that the Metropolitan Line S stock cannot have a 2+2 arrangement. Another victim of the one-size-fits-all or just an inexcusible lack of foresight in the design of these supposedly flexible trains?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 25, 2009 9:01:26 GMT
The problem with 2 + 2 seating for the S8 is that there isn't actually a huge increase in the number of seats! My original plan was to have all 2+2 seating and double tip ups at the car connections. Each car would therefore seat 40 rather than 38! It's not a huge increase, and it would make the corridors tight! The real fault of the S8 is the width of it. If built to maximum car width, 2+2 may have been possible. Imagine A stock with 2 + 2 seating? Look at the class 313s when they took the 3rd seat out of some saloons and made them 2+2. Loads of room. That would have been the way to go!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2009 9:52:09 GMT
[/quote] Whilst longitudinal seating works well on Tube trains because of the cramped layout, it really creates problems when people stretch their legs out or put belongings at their feet. [/quote]
But S Stock is not pure longitudinal seating. There is a lot of 2+1 which will make for a good sized gangway and space for seated passengers.
For those areas of the S Stock that will be completely longitudinal, I take your point about 378s. Once the fourth carriage is added, that will alleviate things somewhat. Having travelled a lot on 377s and 92 stock (which have a slightly wider central section around a handrail), it normally just takes one person to say ' can you move down please' and then people do so. And if people don't move, I push past and move myself into an open space meaning I'm more comfortable. It also means I'm closer to a greater number of seats so can get one before one of the 'sheep' standing beside the door. Passenger mentality takes a short time to change once as that is witnessed a few times over.
The problem is not only in the standardisation of the train, the standardisation and of passengers mentality can have as big an impact upon thee functioning and comfort of a service.
In any case, in the completely longitudinal sections of the train, as you point out, the availability of folding seats does allow for buggies, cycles and wheelchair users to locate themselves in a secure and unobstructive manner and that's important for the service as a whole too. If people stretch their feet out, I would polity ask them to move them out of the way if I needed to stand there. As my Grandmother says, 'Those who don't ask, don't get!'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2009 10:30:00 GMT
The problem with 2 + 2 seating for the S8 is that there isn't actually a huge increase in the number of seats! My original plan was to have all 2+2 seating and double tip ups at the car connections. Each car would therefore seat 40 rather than 38! It's not a huge increase, and it would make the corridors tight! The real fault of the S8 is the width of it. If built to maximum car width, 2+2 may have been possible. Imagine A stock with 2 + 2 seating? Look at the class 313s when they took the 3rd seat out of some saloons and made them 2+2. Loads of room. That would have been the way to go! Is the S stock really that much smaller? According to Tfl stats, the A60 is 295 cm (9' 8") and the S Stock 292cm (just shy of 9'7"). I presume those figures are the external measurements. But as the A Stock has doors internal to the train body-shell, I would imagine that accounts for about 2 inches in itself. Some of this will not be needed for the doors that open externally of the train body on the S Stock. Is it possible that a greater width is allowed for each seat on the S Stock than on the A Stock? People's posteriors are generally becoming larger after all. |
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Oct 25, 2009 10:54:15 GMT
It's very noticeable how you frequently hear passengers commenting on how the 378 is a "swish" train, but "the old trains have more seats". It's also noticeable how people frequently try to open the (sealed) windows -- obviously the air conditioning is not creating a comfortable environment, and this is in autumn. I suspect the attempt to open windows is automatic - not everyone who uses the trains will necessarily know that the cars have A/C fitted. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 25, 2009 11:16:09 GMT
and all southbound Met trains terminate at Baker Street. You jest! That would mean the Extended Circle wasn't needed. ;D ;D It would do wonders for timekeeping through the city.......  |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 25, 2009 11:23:46 GMT
17 1/2 inches was allowed for in 1959 when the A stock was ordered. This is clearly not enough today! A greater width has certainly be allowed for the S stock because it has had to! We will never see 3+2 on a metro train ever again!
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Oct 25, 2009 11:59:31 GMT
Had the misfortune to do Stratford - West Hampstead by NLL last Weds. People having to stand from stop 1. Air con on the 378 ineffective or not working and people trying to force the sealed windows open. Seats back-breakingly hard. What a relief to return by Jubilee Line - and probably quicker too!
It's a real pity as I really like the exterior appearance and livery of these new trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Oct 25, 2009 15:40:44 GMT
2+2 isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm sure I'll be shouted down by hundreds of people now, but on both the District and the Met, I so often see: 1. People with their feet on the opposite seats, leading to other passengers not wanting to sit anywhere near the offending person: 3 seats wasted per 2+2, not to mention 3+2. 2. People sitting on the aisle side of 2 seats (which they're perfectly entitled to do), meaning people don't want to squeeze past them to get 'on the inside': 2 seats wasted per 2+2. This happens even in rush hour, when it seems people would sooner stand rather than contend with the above situations after, e.g. a long day at work. With this in mind, in a practical rather than theoretical sense, does 2+2 really have any significant benefits over longitudinal. I'd always sooner have the latter... <prepares to be screamed at/> |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 25, 2009 17:41:27 GMT
It's a common misconception (perpetuated by some of the LU training) that a heavier train needs a greater distance to stop in. A heavier train has a greater mass and therefore greater brake force - it will in fact stop in a shorter distance. It takes more brake force to stop a heavier train, but since the 1890s all passenger vehicles on the railways have had their own brakes, and thus a longer train will have more brakes (a six-car C-stock train has 48 wheels, an eight-car A-stock train has 64). A motor-trailer pair of A-stock weighs 32+22 =54 tons. For C-stock the figures are 32+20=52 tons. The difference is relatively small. The fact that the A stock runs in fours or eights, and the C-stock in sixes, shouldn't affect their perfromance> that is one of the main advantages of a multiple unit. Lengthen the rain and the power is increased in proportion The weight of the train (actually the weight carried by the braked wheels) will affect the maximum brake force that can be applied without slipping - that's why in the days of unbraked freight trains the weight of the locomotive was so important. As for the rate of acceleration, that depends on factors like gearing and whether weak field is engaged. A stock has a higher top speed but slower acceleration. |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 25, 2009 22:07:54 GMT
As for the rate of acceleration, that depends on factors like gearing and whether weak field is engaged. A stock has a higher top speed but slower acceleration. When the weak field flag is raised on A stock it does two things: 1) force acceleration in rate 1 2) engage weak field that's effectively the same as an extra notch at the end of the normal acceleration curve of the RPA. on all other trains with weak field, only step 2 takes place and hence acceleration is manitained - and when weak field is selected, acceleration continues to a higher balancing speed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2009 19:05:43 GMT
When the weak field flag is raised on A stock it does two things: 1) force acceleration in rate 1 I was actually once told that it reduced the acceleration to rate 0.75, although it's not something I would argue on as being gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 26, 2009 19:35:05 GMT
we're going further off topic, but there are only two acceleration rates, 1 (low) and 2 (higher)
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Oct 26, 2009 23:04:56 GMT
I suspect Jim's figure is about right. And yes, we are going off topic so it'd be good to return to our seats  |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Oct 28, 2009 8:57:31 GMT
soooo what's the acceleration of this S stock like?
similar motors in any way to the 09ts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2009 13:39:07 GMT
2. People sitting on the aisle side of 2 seats (which they're perfectly entitled to do), meaning people don't want to squeeze past them to get 'on the inside': 2 seats wasted per 2+2. Not only that, but you get dirty looks when trying to squeeze past! There's also a reluctance to acknowledge that a 3-seater is not a nice comfy 2-seater. I do think individual seats make things obvious... |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 28, 2009 17:38:29 GMT
When the trial refurb was carried out on 5132-6132 individual seats were provided and the ceiling opened up. The cost prevented it being carried out in the main refurb. It would have sorted out the dirty looks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2009 20:50:01 GMT
Where have the 20s gone since then? I heard they were making a move to West Ruislip or something like that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2009 14:15:24 GMT
The new S stock looks ugly. Infact all these red white and blue trains look ugly. Theres nothing like the look of the old silver trains. Each line had individuality. The seating facing each other giving a feel of privacy. It gave it a real London look and feel to it. Now these red white and blue plastic trains have made it look horrible and now to make it even worse these new S stock trains with their new seating arrangements, their horrible curvy bend at the bottom half. Their intrusive cctv (are there not plenty of cctv's on the whole system as it is). Who wants to travel from the city to Amersham staring into a persons face for the whole of the long journey??? The bright lighting (the lighting of the old stock much more caring to ones eyes) is terrible. The new small seats. I loved the bigger seating. The bouncyness of the seats of the metropolitan. Wow! They got it all wrong. Thinking that its all going to be lovy duvy with these brand spanking new red white and blue, messed up seating trains. Now its a case of lets just get on and get home... Where as before the whole of the underground had character. We are still living London with what old stock (even with the ugly red white and blue colours) we do have. And once gone we are done with, we can never go back to what we had. We have lost it all. Its just a matter of time before everything in London changes (they say for the better) for the worse. We wont have nothing left of what London really is. It will be gone forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 29, 2009 14:27:23 GMT
How did boring silver trains on all lines give individuality?
How do you travel on an A Stock now without "staring into a persons face for the whole of the long journey???"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2009 14:28:13 GMT
And you watch. Mark my words. When these graffiti guys spend the next few years scribbling their ugly names onto these trains with paint, ink or whatever chemicals they are using, the new trains are going to look like trash. This is what happens. The old trains at worst could only get painted with graffiti and then cleaned off! These people have started to scratch their names onto the surface, or use some sort of acid to get their ugly names on the plastic surface making it impossible to remove. What have London Underground done???!!! They have just made things worse for themselves. They never used their brains before thinking of things like this. If I had the power I would bring back all the old stock silver trains. I would have a driver and guards on the northens and centrals again. I would make ticket prices a set price and not rip off the public as the London Underground do each year. I would have all the old vending machines and phone card machines on all the station platforms. I would keep all the lighting slightly dimmer. I would have the old days right back to how it was. But... I dont have this power so it will never happen. London Underground is lost. They have abused their passengers by ripping them off and in the runs made the whole of the system worse.
|
|
