|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 22, 2009 6:31:40 GMT
I think some of us have heard all the complaints about new trains and seating before. Believe it or not, when the A Stock was going into service, people complained about the loss of seats compared with the T Stock and Steam Stock. They didn't like sliding doors in place of slam doors and they wanted the privacy of draught-free compartments as well. It went on for years until eventually they got used to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 22, 2009 7:26:55 GMT
I'm looking forward to trying the new S stock, particularly as it will introduce features new to the Underground. Having grown up with the A stock I will certainly miss it, but times do change and that has to be accepted. The preservation of a unit of A stock, together with the growing acceptance of heritage stock operation by LU, will be a good thing.
However, I will personally be affected by the change to S stock at the same time as the change in service to Amersham (as that's my closest station). The delay to the signalling upgrade will mean that the original plan to have a similar number of seats per hour just won't happen. What particularly irks me is the way that the change in service to Amersham is portrayed as the result of a consultation, when only a tiny majority were in favour of the change.
Every train to Amersham diverted to Chesham means one fewer train to Amersham, whereas trains can run to Chesham in parallel with those to Amersham because of the bay platform. I'd prefer that LU be honest with the passengers and say that this is because the new trains won't fit the bay platform and we can't justify the expense of lengthening it. And if they'd pay Chiltern to run more trains in place then that would make up for the change. Instead, those who pay the highest fares on the Underground will have a reduced service...
Sorry - rant over. It's a bit of a sore point. But I'm still keen to try out the S stock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 8:05:29 GMT
However, I will personally be affected by the change to S stock at the same time as the change in service to Amersham (as that's my closest station). The delay to the signalling upgrade will mean that the original plan to have a similar number of seats per hour just won't happen. What particularly irks me is the way that the change in service to Amersham is portrayed as the result of a consultation, when only a tiny majority were in favour of the change. Every train to Amersham diverted to Chesham means one fewer train to Amersham, whereas trains can run to Chesham in parallel with those to Amersham because of the bay platform. I'd prefer that LU be honest with the passengers and say that this is because the new trains won't fit the bay platform and we can't justify the expense of lengthening it. And if they'd pay Chiltern to run more trains in place then that would make up for the change. Instead, those who pay the highest fares on the Underground will have a reduced service... Sorry - rant over. It's a bit of a sore point. But I'm still keen to try out the S stock. It begs the question, would it have been worthwhile investing a few more quid and getting 2 4 car trains built? Of course, Chesham passengers will have a different view to most! Personally, I would have gone for a couple of 3 or 4 car shuttle trains. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 22, 2009 8:42:58 GMT
However, I will personally be affected by the change to S stock at the same time as the change in service to Amersham (as that's my closest station). The delay to the signalling upgrade will mean that the original plan to have a similar number of seats per hour just won't happen. What particularly irks me is the way that the change in service to Amersham is portrayed as the result of a consultation, when only a tiny majority were in favour of the change. Every train to Amersham diverted to Chesham means one fewer train to Amersham, whereas trains can run to Chesham in parallel with those to Amersham because of the bay platform. I'd prefer that LU be honest with the passengers and say that this is because the new trains won't fit the bay platform and we can't justify the expense of lengthening it. And if they'd pay Chiltern to run more trains in place then that would make up for the change. Instead, those who pay the highest fares on the Underground will have a reduced service... Sorry - rant over. It's a bit of a sore point. But I'm still keen to try out the S stock. It begs the question, would it have been worthwhile investing a few more quid and getting 2 4 car trains built? Of course, Chesham passengers will have a different view to most! Personally, I would have gone for a couple of 3 or 4 car shuttle trains. But is it not the case that Chesham has a larger population in its catchment area than Amersham, so would justify the planned two through trains per hour. Sure Amersham loses out a bit, but the current service is very good and the reductions won't be catastrophic. |
|
vato
Zone 6D - Special Fares Apply
Posts: 131
|
Post by vato on Oct 22, 2009 10:46:54 GMT
But is it not the case that Chesham has a larger population in its catchment area than Amersham, so would justify the planned two through trains per hour. Sure Amersham loses out a bit, but the current service is very good and the reductions won't be catastrophic. Indeed Chesham has a larger population which pays the same fares for a much poorer service than Amersham. A significant number of people that I know drive to Chalfont & Latimer rather than having the potential for a 29 minute wait for the shuttle on the way home. They'd probably drive to Amersham if there was more parking there. Most of those have said they'll travel from Chesham instead once the new service is in place. We'll have to see what the numbers are once it happens. Having said that, I'm sure I'd be annoyed if I lived in Amersham, despite still having 2tph plus the Chiltern service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 11:08:55 GMT
Thing is, the beauty with the shuttle is that while the rest of the line is completely up the wall, the four car is on its own little track and out of the way! You can have a play round with the timings/connections, making sure they are the best for the circumstances. With through running (especially from Aldgate) the branch trains will get caught up in the mess, and the Chesham service becomes that little bit more unpredictable. I would also have favoured a four car S stock as well, for this reason.
The other thing I would like to have seen was a Chesham - North Curve - Watford shuttle, but that'll never happen, as we all know the thing that puts people off is that Watford station is not that good for the Town Centre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 11:19:45 GMT
we're just offering a glorified C Stock... Well said! That's what S reminds me of........... |
|
vato
Zone 6D - Special Fares Apply
Posts: 131
|
Post by vato on Oct 22, 2009 12:42:29 GMT
Thing is, the beauty with the shuttle is that while the rest of the line is completely up the wall, the four car is on its own little track and out of the way! You can have a play round with the timings/connections, making sure they are the best for the circumstances. With through running (especially from Aldgate) the branch trains will get caught up in the mess, and the Chesham service becomes that little bit more unpredictable. I would also have favoured a four car S stock as well, for this reason. Sounds nice in theory, but I've lost count of the number of times I've arrived 1 or 2 minutes late northbound at Chalfont & Latimer, only to see the shuttle heading on up the branch, or even worse having the doors close as you're mere feet from the train after running from platform 1. That wouldn't happen with through trains. It might be worse for purely local passengers though. The other thing I would like to have seen was a Chesham - North Curve - Watford shuttle, but that'll never happen, as we all know the thing that puts people off is that Watford station is not that good for the Town Centre. I'd use that rather than drive to Watford, but it'd need the Croxley Link to work. I won't hold my breath for that. I have no idea what the usage levels would be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 14:05:46 GMT
Sounds nice in theory, but I've lost count of the number of times I've arrived 1 or 2 minutes late northbound at Chalfont & Latimer, only to see the shuttle heading on up the branch, or even worse having the doors close as you're mere feet from the train after running from platform 1. That wouldn't happen with through trains. It might be worse for purely local passengers though. That shouldn't happen if the train is only one or two minutes late. Off peak, booked Chesham connectors leave Baker Street at 10 and 40 past the hour, to arrive Chalfont at 21 and 51 with the shuttle leaving at 25 and 55 for Chesham. There's no way it shouldn't have been connected just for a few minutes. Sometimes, say if the northbound Met was 15 late or so (as an example) you couldn't connect it, it would be too late. Often if the Met connecting with the shuttle is cancelled, I would connect it with the Aylesbury train pathed six minutes behind it. The rostered Station Supervisors at Chalfont are very good, some even go out to the shuttle train and liase with the cabin/driver that everyone will get across ok. I personally get how important that connection is, half an hour on your way home (as example, anywhere is important) is a long time! |
|
|
|
Post by 1938 on Oct 22, 2009 15:26:32 GMT
I think some of us have heard all the complaints about new trains and seating before. Believe it or not, when the A Stock was going into service, people complained about the loss of seats compared with the T Stock and Steam Stock. They didn't like sliding doors in place of slam doors and they wanted the privacy of draught-free compartments as well. It went on for years until eventually they got used to it. The A stock was a sort of compromise in 1960 and far more of a drastic change than the S stock will be. I’m sure there would have been a huge outcry on this forum had it existed at that time. After the demise of the 1959 & 1962 tube stock we are fortunate that the A stock has been allowed to soldier on this long. |
|
vato
Zone 6D - Special Fares Apply
Posts: 131
|
Post by vato on Oct 22, 2009 19:49:20 GMT
That shouldn't happen if the train is only one or two minutes late....<chomp> I agree, and often it works just like you describe. However, there are sufficient exceptions to make me seethe. Last week, I actually managed to just make it by seconds with one other passenger, but the other ~25 folks who were behind us in the tunnel didn't make it - I could hear them shouting. The shuttle left within a minute of on-time that day, and frankly, it should have waited. One other issue with the shuttle is the way Chalfont & Latimer is listed as having step-free access to the street. This is true, but I've known a couple of people rely on that and had to go the long way round via the road - they never make the connection. Anyway, I think I've led this thread enough astray now, so I'll leave this topic alone for a while... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 19:56:13 GMT
However, I will personally be affected by the change to S stock at the same time as the change in service to Amersham (as that's my closest station). The delay to the signalling upgrade will mean that the original plan to have a similar number of seats per hour just won't happen. What particularly irks me is the way that the change in service to Amersham is portrayed as the result of a consultation, when only a tiny majority were in favour of the change. Every train to Amersham diverted to Chesham means one fewer train to Amersham, whereas trains can run to Chesham in parallel with those to Amersham because of the bay platform. I'd prefer that LU be honest with the passengers and say that this is because the new trains won't fit the bay platform and we can't justify the expense of lengthening it. And if they'd pay Chiltern to run more trains in place then that would make up for the change. Instead, those who pay the highest fares on the Underground will have a reduced service... Sorry - rant over. It's a bit of a sore point. But I'm still keen to try out the S stock. It begs the question, would it have been worthwhile investing a few more quid and getting 2 4 car trains built? Of course, Chesham passengers will have a different view to most! Personally, I would have gone for a couple of 3 or 4 car shuttle trains. I don't know how long the shuttle platform at Chalfont+Latimer is, and neither how long the Chesham platform(s) are, but couldn't a S7 stock be used if the S8 is too long as for the shuttle's bay platform at Chalfont+Latimer? The S7 would be isolated so it wouldnt bring any problems more than the 4 car of A stock does now IMO. |
|
vato
Zone 6D - Special Fares Apply
Posts: 131
|
Post by vato on Oct 22, 2009 20:04:01 GMT
The Chalfont & Latimer bay is 4 cars long, and to extend even to 7 cars would necesitate moving all the pointwork immediately north. Chesham can handle 8 cars (and has space to lengthen a little if necessary). But this is flogging a dead horse, since it's already been decided (and I said I'd shut up...)
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 22, 2009 20:14:47 GMT
we're just offering a glorified C Stock... Well said! That's what S reminds me of........... Yes, I agree - Well said. The 'C' Stock are the work horse of the SSR Fleet and do a fantasic job of moving large numbers of customers around and cater brilliantly for short hop/high density journeys (the one's the vast majority of our customers actual take) like no other LU stock ever has. So, as a big 'C' Stock fan, I will take your comments as a massive compliment. Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 22, 2009 21:32:58 GMT
The Chalfont & Latimer bay is 4 cars long, and to extend even to 7 cars would necesitate moving all the pointwork immediately north. Chesham can handle 8 cars (and has space to lengthen a little if necessary). But this is flogging a dead horse, since it's already been decided (and I said I'd shut up...) Actually, the point work at Chalfont and Latimer isn't really the problem. The problem is the platform, which lies between the southbound track and the bay track. This platform can't be lengthened to allow an 8 car train in the bay without slewing the bay's track. There would also be a fair amount of work needed to the signaling, although as the line is to be re-signaled anyway this would be less of a problem. Google map's satellite view of Chalfont and Latimer station actually shows the problem quite well, with a 4 car train in the bay. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 22:01:57 GMT
They should keep three or four double ended D stock units back to run the Chesham shuttle and save wasting an 8 car S stock train or extending the bay road at Chalfont. The D stock are still in reasonable condition and will remain so for many years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 22:30:14 GMT
They should keep three or four double ended D stock units back to run the Chesham shuttle and save wasting an 8 car S stock train or extending the bay road at Chalfont. The D stock are still in reasonable condition and will remain so for many years. That actually makes a lot of sense. The biggest disadvantage I see though is maintaining the depot knowledge and spare parts float required to keep them running (although if some D stock was retained for departmental use, that might not be a big issue). |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,735
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 22, 2009 22:41:41 GMT
One other issue with the shuttle is the way Chalfont & Latimer is listed as having step-free access to the street. This is true, but I've known a couple of people rely on that and had to go the long way round via the road - they never make the connection. This is a very good example of why I think the step-free access blobs should not be on the general tube map. Instead those people who need or want to know about step-free access and interchange should be directed to the much more detailed access guide maps, that should be made much higher profile. I also can't recommend highly enough the Direct Enquiries website. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 22, 2009 23:10:12 GMT
An answer may lay in the solution NR adopted at High Wycombe bay to accommodate longer trains.
They used the space in the car park to create an entirely new platform face to the correct length, with a walk-around placed beyond the buffer stops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2009 1:39:08 GMT
Well said! That's what S reminds me of........... Yes, I agree - Well said. The 'C' Stock are the work horse of the SSR Fleet and do a fantasic job of moving large numbers of customers around and cater brilliantly for short hop/high density journeys (the one's the vast majority of our customers actual take) like no other LU stock ever has. So, as a big 'C' Stock fan, I will take your comments as a massive compliment. Thanks. I don't think you've done the case for S stock much good at all really. C stock? A compliement? Well they are workhorses on lines they are designed for (H&C) but they are not the sort of workhorse for the Met Main! Imagine if they were on there now, everyone standing, a max speed of 40 mph and nasty rheo 'snatching' every time the brakes were used (apart from Westinghouse, but from I've seen noone seems to use it whenever I go on C stock trips, even where they're supposed to). I reckon you're seriously blinkered if you see a new model of all SSL lines as a modern C stock. As said they are good for city work, but not for the outer stuff as the Met. Also seems to be a reason for the left handed TBC which no drivers except for die hard C stock drivers actually wanted. Most people in this country are right handed, which makes D stock so popular. I'm so glad that the new stock has been developed so impartially. |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 23, 2009 5:24:00 GMT
They should keep three or four double ended D stock units back to run the Chesham shuttle and save wasting an 8 car S stock train or extending the bay road at Chalfont. The D stock are still in reasonable condition and will remain so for many years. As far as I know, the bay road at Chalfont won't be extended. Chesham will receive an all day through service instead. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Oct 23, 2009 7:29:56 GMT
Also seems to be a reason for the left handed TBC which no drivers except for die hard C stock drivers actually wanted. Most people in this country are right handed, which makes D stock so popular. I'm so glad that the new stock has been developed so impartially. Sorry, you're wrong there as prjb will explain later. The reason for TBC on the left is that the cab is designed for the long term. Which means TBTC/ATO (full auto). Which won't need the TBC. So it's put on the left so the rest of the driver controls (which WILL be needed in the future) lie handy to the driver's seating position. At least, that's the way prjb explained it at the viewing. (If they had been designed for purely manual driving the tBC WOULD have been on the right....) |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 23, 2009 8:19:09 GMT
As far as I know, the bay road at Chalfont won't be extended. Chesham will receive an all day through service instead. That is correct, and that's because it is far, far cheaper to head in that direction, than exploring huge projects that will only provide the same frequency of service. Despite the advantages of a self-contained service, and the disadvantages - particularly with a single-line branch - of becoming "part of the network" properly, Chesham passengers will get the service they wanted, and the bay will become nothing more than a short siding. |
|
|
|
Post by carlovel1 on Oct 23, 2009 8:24:13 GMT
|
|
vato
Zone 6D - Special Fares Apply
Posts: 131
|
Post by vato on Oct 23, 2009 10:41:29 GMT
Thanks carlovel1!
Can anyone explain why this was so stop-start-slow? Was platform clearance checking being done at each station en route?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 23, 2009 11:37:09 GMT
That is the obvious reason - having been involved in the commissioning of new-build rolling stock elsewhere.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 23, 2009 15:18:54 GMT
As far as I know, the bay road at Chalfont won't be extended. Chesham will receive an all day through service instead. That is correct, and that's because it is far, far cheaper to head in that direction, than exploring huge projects that will only provide the same frequency of service. Despite the advantages of a self-contained service, and the disadvantages - particularly with a single-line branch - of becoming "part of the network" properly, Chesham passengers will get the service they wanted, and the bay will become nothing more than a short siding. What will happen when two Chesham trains turn up at Chalfont within 10 minutes? The current track layout at Chalfont isn't particularly flexible. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,735
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 23, 2009 15:21:42 GMT
I presume that one of them would be diverted to Amersham.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 23, 2009 15:23:19 GMT
Also seems to be a reason for the left handed TBC which no drivers except for die hard C stock drivers actually wanted. Most people in this country are right handed, which makes D stock so popular. I'm so glad that the new stock has been developed so impartially. Sorry, you're wrong there as prjb will explain later. The reason for TBC on the left is that the cab is designed for the long term. Which means TBTC (full auto). Which won't need the TBC. So it's put on the left so the rest of the driver controls (which WILL be needed in the future) lie handy to the driver's seating position. At least, that's the way prjb explained it at the viewing. (If they had been designed for purely manual driving the tBC WOULD have been on the right....)I'm right-handed and frequently drive 95 stock, and find the TBC arrangement comfortable. However I've never found the left-handed layout on other stocks to be uncomfortable - for me it's different, but it's not a problem at all. A lot of mainline trains have their TBC on the left side - class 170 and 375 I believe, definitely 365, and maybe the Desiros as well. These certainly weren't designed for ATO! Maybe it's partly because this was the traditional location for the brake handle. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 23, 2009 15:27:22 GMT
I presume that one of them would be diverted to Amersham. ..therefore creating a large gap in the Chesham service. |
|
