|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Apr 16, 2017 20:40:30 GMT
Let's keep this thread about the changes being made to the trains, not the politics behind those changes. Exactly As above, I'm a bit fed up with this. Members political opinions or comments on political issues are not welcome on this board. In the last few weeks, several advisory moderation posts by other moderators and myself have been made about this subject and yet we are still seeing politically angled posts. For the last time. DO NOT DO IT. Do not mention political parties, opinions or comment as it creates division and rancour. Any more of it, inclusive of arguing with this post, will be met with action to remove posts and the likely sanctioning of those perpetuating it.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Apr 16, 2017 20:59:03 GMT
But on the Central the four units making up each train are interchangeable, apart from the obvious requirement that the two end units must have a cab, and you would lose operating flexibility if only some units had wheelchair spaces. You might fit a wheelchair space only in the cabbed units, as then each train would have two (and a few would have three) Actually, if every C car in the B-C units was modified then you would end up with every train having two wheelchair cars in the middle of the train, since almost every train is A-B-B-C-C-B-B-A. This would work out quite nicely, and it would not affect flexibility. However, the few trains with a middle cab would end up only having one wheelchair car, unless some of the middle cabs were permanently relegated to the middle and also fitted with a wheelchair space.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 16, 2017 21:24:50 GMT
Actually, if every C car in the B-C units was modified then you would end up with every train having two wheelchair cars in the middle of the train, since almost every train is A-B-B-C-C-B-B-A. This would work out quite nicely, and it would not affect flexibility. Don't forget the de-icing units, they are formed B-D. Would you just make the D cars accessible too to keep things simple?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Apr 16, 2017 21:26:26 GMT
Actually, if every C car in the B-C units was modified then you would end up with every train having two wheelchair cars in the middle of the train, since almost every train is A-B-B-C-C-B-B-A. This would work out quite nicely, and it would not affect flexibility. Don't forget the de-icing units, they are formed B-D. Would you just make the D cars accessible too to keep things simple? I think you could just treat B-C and B-D units the same in this regard
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Apr 16, 2017 22:49:33 GMT
Actually, if every C car in the B-C units was modified then you would end up with every train having two wheelchair cars in the middle of the train, since almost every train is A-B-B-C-C-B-B-A. This would work out quite nicely, and it would not affect flexibility. However, the few trains with a middle cab would end up only having one wheelchair car, unless some of the middle cabs were permanently relegated to the middle and also fitted with a wheelchair space. My observations suggest that there are more trains with at least one of the B-C units back to front than with an A-B unit in the middle. Putting the wheelchair space in the C cars would make sense from the point of view of positioning the raised areas in the middle of the platforms, but it would have to be long enough to cover the middle four cars. I think the suggestion of fitting the wheelchair space in the A-B units also has merit, as the Waterloo and City units don't have a C equivalent. Having the space in the A (or B) cars would mean that the raised area could be shorter, but would need to be at either end of the platform.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 17, 2017 10:25:06 GMT
Actually, if every C car in the B-C units was modified then you would end up with every train having two wheelchair cars in the middle of the train, since almost every train is A-B-B-C-C-B-B-A. This would work out quite nicely, and it would not affect flexibility. However, the few trains with a middle cab would end up only having one wheelchair car, unless some of the middle cabs were permanently relegated to the middle and also fitted with a wheelchair space. My observations suggest that there are more trains with at least one of the B-C units back to front than with an A-B unit in the middle. Putting the wheelchair space in the C cars would make sense from the point of view of positioning the raised areas in the middle of the platforms, but it would have to be long enough to cover the middle four cars. I think the suggestion of fitting the wheelchair space in the A-B units also has merit, as the Waterloo and City units don't have a C equivalent. Having the space in the A (or B) cars would mean that the raised area could be shorter, but would need to be at either end of the platform. Surely the obvious thing to do is put it in the NDM car of every AB unit. Then every train will have an accessible area in cars 2 and 7, with a handful of trains having an extra area. This would be roughly consistent with other lines, and avoids the hump being at the platform end which I believe is considered undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Apr 17, 2017 19:20:04 GMT
It seems like the position of the wheelchair space(s) is not very consistent across LUL. S7/S8 have it in the two middle cars, so does 09, but 95 and 96 have it in the 2nd car from each end.
Seems a bit random!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 17, 2017 19:35:08 GMT
The central line does have sloped platforms at the ends which is a legacy of lengthening for 8 car trains so I can understand why this would not be popular.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,414
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 18, 2017 1:44:38 GMT
There are also several Central line stations where the exit is right at the end of the platform (e.g. Leytonstone, South Woodford) meaning these carriages get very busy. I imagine that it will be desirable for everybody if those who are required to travel in a certain part of the train do so in a relatively less busy portion.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 18, 2017 8:34:54 GMT
It is good to see plenty of interesting observations in this thread about the possible direction of these modifications. One thing seems clear they seem to emphasise there is a need for joined up strategic thinking from someone at TFL.
For instance there would be no point putting wheelchair accessible cars only at the end of trains, if the platforms only have wheelchair accessible humps in middle. Things need to line up, indeed pretty much the same issue applies to wherever accessible provision is installed on a train.
To be honest in an ideal world every car in every train would be fully accessible, even if that ideal may not be immediately attainable. It would be sad to see TFL only aim in the longer term to deliver just the absolute minimum required by DDA even if it means the actual accessible bits do not line up. OK there is a short term compliance issue - but personally I think it is time for TFL to really embrace this challenge and go beyond the minimum.
Inherently, even if every car "lost a few seats" to make room for wheelchairs/buggies the actual consequence (especially during peak hours) would be almost certainly increase the actual space available for standing passengers when they are not being used - and inherently add to the capacity of the train. Whilst we all prefer a seat - the reality is that for those who have to travel during peak hours, many passengers already have to stand in sardine like conditions, so liberating a bit of extra space by removing some seats will actually make that experience better for those forced to stand too.
Given the risk of different solutions being adopted for different lines, I hope that at the very least TFL consider applying some sort of clear external marking to be applied to accessible cars. This would help those needing an accessible car to locate and board them quickly. (Perhaps some sort of painted colour line along the top of relevant cars like some mainline stock mark their first class carriages would work).
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,414
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 18, 2017 11:00:36 GMT
I suspect that that the minimum required will be done for the old stocks but that new trains will be fully accessible (even if the stations aren't yet). To do otherwise would probably cost significantly more for little additional benefit.
At platforms on the JLE, where the whole platform is accessible, there are blue markers noting where those needing step-free access at Green Park and Wembley Park should travel.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 18, 2017 12:02:25 GMT
One thing seems clear they seem to emphasise there is a need for joined up strategic thinking from someone at TFL. Inherently, even if every car "lost a few seats" to make room for wheelchairs/buggies the actual consequence (especially during peak hours) would be almost certainly increase the actual space available for standing passengers when they are not being used - and inherently add to the capacity of the train. Whilst we all prefer a seat - the reality is that for those who have to travel during peak hours, many passengers already have to stand in sardine like conditions, so liberating a bit of extra space by removing some seats will actually make that experience better for those forced to stand too. Didn't LOROL (the old Overground operator) do this on the North London Line? They removed seats from the units so rather than 3+2 they became 2+2 with more standing room.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 18, 2017 12:06:26 GMT
For instance there would be no point putting wheelchair accessible cars only at the end of trains, if the platforms only have wheelchair accessible humps in middle. Things need to line up, indeed pretty much the same issue applies to wherever accessible provision is installed on a train. Given the risk of different solutions being adopted for different lines, I hope that at the very least TFL consider applying some sort of clear external marking to be applied to accessible cars. This would help those needing an accessible car to locate and board them quickly. (Perhaps some sort of painted colour line along the top of relevant cars like some mainline stock mark their first class carriages would work). It would be perverse to put the humps anywhere except where an accessible car would stop. So if the accessible cars are at the ends of the trains, that is where the humps should be - and conversely you can tell where the accessible cars will stop because that is where the humps are. Whether the positions of humps are consistent from one line to another is less important, except where same-or cross platform interchange occurs - e.g Central /SSL (Mile End). Arranging level access at Picc/SSL or Bakerloo/Overground shared platforms is probably a lost cause, because different floor heights are unavoidable there. If it can be done, the humps (or dips) would have to be at different places for the two stock types
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 18, 2017 12:12:18 GMT
Arranging level access at Picc/SSL or Bakerloo/Overground shared platforms is probably a lost cause, because different floor heights are unavoidable there. If it can be done, the humps (or dips) would have to be at different places for the two stock types. The platform would end up looking like a big dipper, which would probably be more dangerous than the current step down/up!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 18, 2017 12:57:08 GMT
It's not so easy to just remove seats on tube trains as many have equipment under the seats. The transverse seats on the 72s are especially busy!!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,414
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 18, 2017 12:58:29 GMT
Very long term you might be able to segregate the Watford DC from other National Rail services and build stock with the same floor height as the Bakerloo line trains and change the platforms to match. Boarding ramps could be used on the occasion step-free access was required to standard height stock was required. Given that new trains are currently being built for the line though, this is at least a generation away if it ever were to happen.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 18, 2017 13:17:37 GMT
Ahhhh! Thats an interesting idea though. If the platforms were as long as the longest train plus one carriage, then, assuming disabled access could be provided in end cars, you'd be able to provide level access to both stocks by stopping them at slightly different (~40') marks; hump up at the front for LO/SSR, hump down at the back for the toy trains. Its definitely not a substitute for full provision in new railways, and would require some serious track/signal work at places like Rayners or Ealing Common, BUT... would enable current services to remain, and possibly even provide proof of concept for other stations/lines where sharing stock might become an issue in the future. You could of course be lazy and not extend the platforms, have different accessibly humps at each end, but use SDO to cut access to the wrong stock at the location of the wrong hump. One wonders how well the cost would compare to that of moving Chiswick Park station and associated service revisions (ISTR that was on the cards for a related reason possibly?).
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 18, 2017 13:18:28 GMT
Very long term you might be able to segregate the Watford DC from other National Rail services and build stock with the same floor height as the Bakerloo line trains and change the platforms to match. . Possibly, but then what would happen at Watford High Street if the Croxley link ever happens? It would also require dedicated platforms at Euston (at present LM services can use the same platforms, although they rarely do so) . Given that new trains are currently being built for the line though, [stock with a low floor height] is at least a generation away. Not necessarily, in these strange times.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 18, 2017 13:19:21 GMT
metman; presumably though the middle seats in whatever car is worked on for the 73ts will have to go? The end seats might be slightly more tricky
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 18, 2017 13:26:32 GMT
You gents have all been members long enough now to know where the Fantasy RIPAS board is!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 18, 2017 13:32:31 GMT
That upstart of a board is too young for me, I'm afraid. I remember when all that space was fields... (or ads more likely). Anyway, I hope bring the cost of different schemes into topic is useful; for a given amount of money, which outcomes are most useful for passengers with disabilities that are least detrimental to overall passenger flow. Are any schemes revealed yet for proposed alterations to stock interiors?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,414
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 18, 2017 14:07:44 GMT
Very long term you might be able to segregate the Watford DC from other National Rail services and build stock with the same floor height as the Bakerloo line trains and change the platforms to match. . Possibly, but then what would happen at Watford High Street if the Croxley link ever happens? It would also require dedicated platforms at Euston (at present LM services can use the same platforms, although they rarely do so) Well Euston is due a rebuild at some point, and on the timescale we're talking about here a dedicated platform at Euston is not out of the question. Certainly it wouldn't be practical today. I hadn't thought about Watford High Street re Croxley, but I do now recall a previous discussion (probably in the context of extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction again) that raised the possibility of either side platforms at a different height or extending the platforms to two-trains long with different stopping places for the different trains. I don't remember how feasible they were thought to be though.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 18, 2017 16:22:37 GMT
You gents have all been members long enough now to know where the Fantasy RIPAS board is! Is it time to put discussion of the Croxley Link back into RIPAS?
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 18, 2017 16:36:15 GMT
You gents have all been members long enough now to know where the Fantasy RIPAS board is! Is it time to put discussion of the Croxley Link back into RIPAS? Hmmm, an interesting point NF.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 18, 2017 16:36:27 GMT
You gents have all been members long enough now to know where the Fantasy RIPAS board is! Is it time to put discussion of the Croxley Link back into RIPAS? Anyway, back to the accessibility modifications to the 72ts and 92ts please!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Apr 18, 2017 17:11:04 GMT
metman; presumably though the middle seats in whatever car is worked on for the 73ts will have to go? The end seats might be slightly more tricky The 73 stock has already been amended during refurbishment so will be easier to do. I'd like to see what the plans are though.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 21, 2017 14:41:50 GMT
Whoops! 72ts I meant
|
|
|
Post by jetblast787 on Apr 21, 2017 20:11:07 GMT
New build of a shed in Acton Works is going ahead for this work to be done in house. The site is a group of open sidings , to enable the construction the sidings will have to be cleared of redundant rolling stock currently stored there. The April issue of Underground News has a photo of the trains which include Tube and Surface stocks. Does this mean theres a chance to see the 92 on Pic. around Acton Town?
|
|